vox--2020-02-21--Some development aid gets misdirected. Did the World Bank try to suppress a paper saying so?

When the World Bank disperses aid to a low-income country , the amount of cash in offshore accounts controlled by the country ’ s elites has increased by about 7.5 percent , according to a new working paper .
This finding suggests that some share of the aid is being diverted or stolen .
On its own , this shouldn ’ t be an earth-shattering revelation .
Every major organization that works in developing countries combats corruption , bribery , and general misuse of funds ; it ’ s important to take strict measures to combat theft , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of theft doesn ’ t render the aid pointless or ill-advised .
But when economists at the research division of the World Bank — which uses the bank ’ s vast troves of data and resources to do important economic research meant to be politically independent from the bank — submitted the paper , its publication was delayed for internal review .
Now , the World Bank ’ s chief economist has resigned after only 15 months on the job , one of the paper ’ s authors has published it on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published it officially a few hours later , and economists around the world are puzzling over whether the World Bank really tried to suppress some research that made it look bad .
The paper that the World Bank may have tried to suppress Authored by economists Jørgen Juel Andersen , Niels Johannesen , and Bob Rijkers , the paper , “ Elite Capture of Foreign Aid Evidence from Offshore Bank Accounts , ” looks at “ aid capture ” — aid making it to a country ’ s elites instead of its people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets aid , “ disbursements to highly aid-dependent countries coincide with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers known for bank secrecy and private wealth management , but not in other financial centers.
” In other words , shady bank account holdings go up , while normal bank account holdings don ’ t .
There are several reasons to suspect , based on this data , that aid is being diverted to the personal accounts of wealthy individuals .
Offshore bank accounts are “ overwhelmingly concentrated at the very top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elites in a country , not the people who are supposed to be receiving aid .
The authors “ observe a sharp and immediate increase in deposits ” during the quarter the World Bank aid money is disbursed , but not in subsequent quarters .
And the authors find that money flows only to banks with a reputation for protecting client secrecy , not to banks in general — so it ’ s not just that more legitimate money is being suddenly invested internationally .
Overall , despite the very real limitations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable to say that the flows of money likely represent corrupt “ capture ” of money meant to go to aid projects .
How bad is the problem ?
On average , the authors write , the “ implied leakage rate is around 7.5 percent , ” and it ’ s higher when aid is a bigger percentage of GDP .
Notably , there ’ s really not much evidence of any leakage when the aid represents 1 percent of GDP or less .
When the aid represents 3 percent of GDP or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 percent .
That , the authors write , supports worries “ that very high levels of aid might foster corruption and institutional erosion.
” The paper appears meticulously written , exploring and critiquing many alternative explanations for the jump of wealth in private bank accounts .
It still needs to be peer-reviewed and published , but it will likely be useful in designing future aid programs to be less susceptible to corruption .
But for a while , it was unreleased but “ conditionally accepted ” in the World Bank ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstance .
What happened ?
What we know about the delays in paper publication On February 13 , the Economist broke the news of the World Bank ’ s delays in publishing the working paper .
“ It passed an exacting internal review by other researchers in November , ” they reported .
“ But , according to informed sources , publication was blocked by higher officials … The bank insists a final decision on publication has not been made and that it still has legitimate concerns about the paper.
” Furthermore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bank ’ s research is meant to be safeguarded by its chief economist , ” Yale economics professor Pinelopi “ Penny ” Goldberg , who unexpectedly resigned this week for reasons that remain unclear .
( Goldberg declined to comment for this story . )
The Economist article caused a stir .
“ The Economist reports our paper was blocked by WB top management , connecting this to Penny Goldberg ’ s resignation , ” Andersen , one of the paper ’ s authors , tweeted .
Someone leaked the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scathing analysis , writing : “ it is clearly highly embarrassing that an organisation which aims to do good in developing countries may be exacerbating the already wide chasm between the haves and have-nots .
… That is scant reason to keep the research from public view.
” On February 18 , one of the authors — Johannesen — published the paper on his website .
A few hours later , the World Bank apparently made its decision about publication and put up the paper too .
( In a statement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support our research department ’ s work to generate independent , relevant , peer-reviewed research , including on the important topic of illicit financial flows.
” The World Bank did not respond to a request for comment from Vox . )
What to make of all this ?
Well , for one thing , it seems the World Bank screwed up — badly .
The allegations that the paper was blocked made it look like the bank doesn ’ t value the independence of the researchers who use their data to explore key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event that the reasons for the delay were entirely innocent .
And if papers like this are getting blocked , that suggests the bank ’ s institutional culture could also be deterring researchers from pursuing research that might yield unflattering results for the bank in the first place .
It ’ ll take time and effort for the World Bank to rebuild trust on that front .
But the fact that the alleged suppression didn ’ t work is encouraging .
The chief economist of the World Bank resigned .
Sources told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paper to the Financial Times .
The paper ’ s authors wrote not-very-oblique tweets about it .
Their angry colleagues rallied around them .
It ’ s very difficult to suppress research in the modern era .
People whose research is suppressed by an organization can go to the press , or publish it themselves on their websites , and the research community can discuss and draw conclusions for itself on social media .
There are more ways than ever for the truth to get out — and that ’ s good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is badly needed if development aid is to do as much good as possible .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

When the World Bank disperses aid to a low-income country, the amount of cash in offshore accounts controlled by the country’s elites has increased by about 7.5 percent, according to a new working paper. This finding suggests that some share of the aid is being diverted or stolen.
On its own, this shouldn’t be an earth-shattering revelation. Every major organization that works in developing countries combats corruption, bribery, and general misuse of funds; it’s important to take strict measures to combat theft, of course, but the existence of some level of theft doesn’t render the aid pointless or ill-advised.
But when economists at the research division of the World Bank — which uses the bank’s vast troves of data and resources to do important economic research meant to be politically independent from the bank — submitted the paper, its publication was delayed for internal review.
Now, the World Bank’s chief economist has resigned after only 15 months on the job, one of the paper’s authors has published it on his own website, the bank relented and published it officially a few hours later, and economists around the world are puzzling over whether the World Bank really tried to suppress some research that made it look bad.
The paper that the World Bank may have tried to suppress
Authored by economists Jørgen Juel Andersen, Niels Johannesen, and Bob Rijkers, the paper, “Elite Capture of Foreign Aid Evidence from Offshore Bank Accounts,” looks at “aid capture” — aid making it to a country’s elites instead of its people.
They find that when a country gets aid, “disbursements to highly aid-dependent countries coincide with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers known for bank secrecy and private wealth management, but not in other financial centers.” In other words, shady bank account holdings go up, while normal bank account holdings don’t.
There are several reasons to suspect, based on this data, that aid is being diverted to the personal accounts of wealthy individuals. Offshore bank accounts are “overwhelmingly concentrated at the very top of the wealth distribution” — so among the elites in a country, not the people who are supposed to be receiving aid. The authors “observe a sharp and immediate increase in deposits” during the quarter the World Bank aid money is disbursed, but not in subsequent quarters.
And the authors find that money flows only to banks with a reputation for protecting client secrecy, not to banks in general — so it’s not just that more legitimate money is being suddenly invested internationally. Overall, despite the very real limitations of this data, it’s reasonable to say that the flows of money likely represent corrupt “capture” of money meant to go to aid projects.
How bad is the problem? On average, the authors write, the “implied leakage rate is around 7.5 percent,” and it’s higher when aid is a bigger percentage of GDP. Notably, there’s really not much evidence of any leakage when the aid represents 1 percent of GDP or less. When the aid represents 3 percent of GDP or more, though, average leakage is 15 percent.
That, the authors write, supports worries “that very high levels of aid might foster corruption and institutional erosion.”
The paper appears meticulously written, exploring and critiquing many alternative explanations for the jump of wealth in private bank accounts. It still needs to be peer-reviewed and published, but it will likely be useful in designing future aid programs to be less susceptible to corruption.
But for a while, it was unreleased but “conditionally accepted” in the World Bank’s working paper series, a seemingly unusual circumstance. What happened?
What we know about the delays in paper publication
On February 13, the Economist broke the news of the World Bank’s delays in publishing the working paper. “It passed an exacting internal review by other researchers in November,” they reported. “But, according to informed sources, publication was blocked by higher officials … The bank insists a final decision on publication has not been made and that it still has legitimate concerns about the paper.”
Furthermore, the Economist observed, “the integrity of the bank’s research is meant to be safeguarded by its chief economist,” Yale economics professor Pinelopi “Penny” Goldberg, who unexpectedly resigned this week for reasons that remain unclear. (Goldberg declined to comment for this story.)
The Economist article caused a stir. “The Economist reports our paper was blocked by WB top management, connecting this to Penny Goldberg’s resignation,” Andersen, one of the paper’s authors, tweeted.
My research on World Bank (WB) aid and hidden wealth, with Niels Johannesen (UCPH) and Bob Rijkers (WB), attracts considerable attention. The Economist reports our paper was blocked by WB top management, connecting this to Penny Goldberg’s resignation. https://t.co/V2qDXogBrP — Jørgen Juel Andersen (@jorgenja) February 17, 2020
Someone leaked the paper to the Financial Times, which published a scathing analysis, writing: “it is clearly highly embarrassing that an organisation which aims to do good in developing countries may be exacerbating the already wide chasm between the haves and have-nots. … That is scant reason to keep the research from public view.”
On February 18, one of the authors — Johannesen — published the paper on his website. A few hours later, the World Bank apparently made its decision about publication and put up the paper too. (In a statement, the organization wrote, “We fully support our research department’s work to generate independent, relevant, peer-reviewed research, including on the important topic of illicit financial flows.” The World Bank did not respond to a request for comment from Vox.)
What to make of all this? Well, for one thing, it seems the World Bank screwed up — badly. The allegations that the paper was blocked made it look like the bank doesn’t value the independence of the researchers who use their data to explore key questions in global development, even in the event that the reasons for the delay were entirely innocent. And if papers like this are getting blocked, that suggests the bank’s institutional culture could also be deterring researchers from pursuing research that might yield unflattering results for the bank in the first place. It’ll take time and effort for the World Bank to rebuild trust on that front.
But the fact that the alleged suppression didn’t work is encouraging. The chief economist of the World Bank resigned. Sources told the Economist about it. Someone leaked the paper to the Financial Times. The paper’s authors wrote not-very-oblique tweets about it. Their angry colleagues rallied around them.
It’s very difficult to suppress research in the modern era. People whose research is suppressed by an organization can go to the press, or publish it themselves on their websites, and the research community can discuss and draw conclusions for itself on social media. There are more ways than ever for the truth to get out — and that’s good news, as rigorous research like this is badly needed if development aid is to do as much good as possible.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-02-22--Who’s going to win the Nevada caucuses, according to the polls

The few polls we have heading into the Nevada caucuses are clear : Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) is on the rise .
Political experts on the ground also say the Vermont senator is the favorite to win the caucuses , but many are watching to see if former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) can turn their campaigns around in Nevada , or if former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg can continue his momentum in a state far more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire .
Much could change between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday , February 22 , at 1 pm PT/3 pm ET .
The field of candidates is still massive after Iowa and New Hampshire , and the chaos of Iowa ’ s caucuses earlier this month is a good reminder we could be in for a long day of counting votes .
There ’ s a dearth of polling in Nevada , compared to the first two states : There have been just three polls conducted so far in February ( plus one poll of just Latino voters ) , compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the New Hampshire primary .
And it ’ s not just the lack of polls ; the caucus system is complicated , and the transient state population is inherently difficult to poll accurately .
Still , let ’ s look at the data we have .
The current RealClearPolitics Nevada average finds Sanders with a 13-point lead over his closest competitor , Biden .
All February polls found Sanders in first place by enough to be outside the margin of error .
The Las Vegas Review-Journal poll of voters conducted from February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 percent support , followed by Biden at 18 percent and Warren at 13 percent .
The Data for Progress poll conducted from February 12 to 15 found Sanders with a double-digit lead with 35 percent of likely caucus-goers supporting him , followed by Warren at 16 percent , Buttigieg at 15 percent , and Biden at 14 percent .
Newer polls show a similar picture .
Emerson College/8 News Now Poll of Nevada caucus-goers conducted February 19 and 20 found Sanders at polling at 30 percent , Buttigieg at 17 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 percent , and Klobuchar at 11 percent .
And another Data for Progress poll conducted from February 19 to 20 shows Sanders at 32 percent , followed by Warren at 17 percent , Buttigieg at 15 percent , and Biden at 14 percent .
Taken together with previous polls from January , it starts to paint a picture , according to Jon Ralston , editor of the Nevada Independent and dean of the state ’ s political press corps .
“ The polling to me is suspect , but since you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , you start to have validation , ” Ralston told Vox in an interview .
The race is tighter looking at a poll of just Latino likely voters .
Latinos make up 30 percent of the state ’ s population and accounted for 19 percent of Democratic voters in 2016 , so their votes matter .
A February 10-13 Telemundo/Mason-Dixon Strategy poll found Biden in a narrow lead at 34 percent , compared to Sanders at 31 percent .
The rest of the candidates were in single digits among these voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ; young Latino voters prefer Sanders while older ones like Biden .
It ’ s worth repeating that these are just a few polls ; furthermore , they give an incomplete picture of what could happen Saturday , when Nevadans will head to their local precincts to sort themselves into groups depending on which candidate they like .
If , however , their favorite candidate falls short of the 15 percent threshold , they ’ ll have a chance to switch in a second “ realignment.
” Nevada will report both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of county delegates each candidate wins .
As Ralston recently tweeted , polls are just measuring the first alignment and not the second .
In other words , things could and likely will change on caucus day .
But interviews with campaign staff and political experts on the ground in Nevada show a growing consensus that with Sanders ’ s comfortable lead , the real race is for second or third place .
“ I think we ’ re starting to figure out who is going to be first here — maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served as communications director for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid .
“ But we don ’ t know who is going to be second through sixth , and it could be almost any combination.
” All major caveats about Nevada ’ s lack of polling aside , the conventional wisdom on the ground is that Sanders is the frontrunner .
Beyond the RealClearPolitics state polling average showing Sanders at 30 percent , FiveThirtyEight ’ s primary forecast gives Sanders a 76 percent chance of winning the most votes in the Nevada caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders ’ s dominance here .
He ’ s riding a high from winning the popular vote in Iowa ( albeit basically tying Buttigieg in that state ’ s traditional metric of success , state delegate equivalents ) and narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary last week ( though he also tied Buttigieg for delegates there ) .
Furthermore , Sanders has built a strong operation in the state to capitalize on this momentum .
“ He carried over most of those average supporters he had four years ago , ” veteran Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview .
“ Those folks stayed active , they stayed loyal , they ’ re Bernie folks.
” Sanders ’ s campaign has been organizing for the past 10 months .
With over 200 staff on the ground ( more than the Biden , Buttigieg , or Warren camps ) , they ’ ve been calling , texting , and knocking on doors all over the state .
And they ’ ve put special emphasis on organizing voters of color to turn out ; organizing communities of color is “ baked into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me .
“ Going where people are , when they are , and organizing them at all hours — Las Vegas is a very working-class town , ” she added .
“ It does take more to organize working-class people.
” National polls show Sanders is leading among Latino voters — which make up a substantial chunk of Nevada ’ s population .
A February Morning Consult tracking poll found Sanders at 42 percent among Hispanic voters , followed by former New York City Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 14 percent .
The Nevada Telemundo poll showed a much closer race between Sanders and Biden among Latino voters , but nationally , Sanders ’ s natural strength with young voters is boosting him in this demographic — which tends to be younger .
Even though the all-powerful Culinary Union has made clear it is not a fan of Sanders or his Medicare-for-all plan ( which they fear would take away their union health insurance ) , it has not weighed in and endorsed another candidate .
That means no one else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Culinary Union can be .
“ If the Culinary [ Union ] was really , really mad at Bernie , they would have endorsed Biden and gone all out for Biden , ” said Ralston .
“ Even if they had done that , I ’ m not sure they would have been able to stop Bernie.
” The rest of the field is tightly clustered behind Sanders The RealClearPolitics tally shows a tightly bunched race among the rest of the candidates : Biden in second at 16 percent , Warren in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fourth at 12.5 percent .
Bloomberg is not on the ballot here , but billionaire Tom Steyer and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) are still in the mix .
Biden and Warren badly need things to go right in Nevada .
A loss here could be especially damaging for Biden , who came in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire .
He has little room for error in Nevada , especially because it ’ s the week before South Carolina .
His campaign has emphasized that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse states with nonwhite voters , and this is his first chance to prove it .
A Biden campaign aide in Nevada said they feel good about their “ competitive ” operation in the state .
Biden ’ s team “ knows this is the make-or-break time , ” Ralston said .
“ If he ’ s an also-ran in Nevada after being an also-ran in the first two states , his ‘ firewall ’ is gone.
” Warren is also looking for a second wind after placing a decent third in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her campaign is riding a new wave of momentum from her searing debate performance in Las Vegas Wednesday night , where she roasted Bloomberg and pretty much everyone else onstage — raising an eye-popping $ 2.8 million from supporters by the end of the night .
Allies are hailing it as the start of her comeback , but we won ’ t know until Saturday if it actually worked .
Even candidates who are riding momentum out of New Hampshire could hit a snag in Nevada .
Klobuchar saw a surprise bump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 11 , but she ’ s scrambling to size up a small campaign in the state .
Even with large crowds , polls show her falling behind with nonwhite voters .
“ The uphill battle is introducing her to people who weren ’ t familiar with her , ” a Klobuchar staffer told Vox .
“ We ’ re trying to be as aggressive as we can.
” Buttigieg faces a similar problem with nonwhite voters , but his advantages lie in his substantial staff and organization in the state .
Multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Nevada in the past year , and he has the most to gain if he wins here and disproves the narrative that he can ’ t garner support from nonwhite voters .
Ralston said he wouldn ’ t be surprised if Buttigieg comes in second .
A successful Nevada win “ underscores he ’ s top tier , ” Vassiliadis said .
“ He has money , he ’ s got solid organization in Super Tuesday states.
” Buttigieg is trying to make as many introductions to nonwhite voters as he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dozen events in the past week , and his campaign said they ’ re getting more people signing up to volunteer or work as precinct captains on their behalf .
“ We were a little bit late to the game here relative to other candidates , ” a Buttigieg staffer told Vox .
“ We definitely feel the momentum here on the ground.
” Nevada ’ s caucus system is a big part of what makes it a difficult state to poll .
As Ralston tweeted , polls are just measuring what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but won ’ t capture what the caucus results will look like after the supporters of low-performing candidates realign to their second choice .
There are plenty of other reasons the state is tricky , which Vox ’ s Cameron Peters recently explained in depth .
One of the big ones is that the Nevada caucuses are new on the scene , and it takes more time for pollsters to accurately model caucus results .
Peters writes : Not only is the polling infrastructure tough to develop in Nevada , but the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach .
Tourism and entertainment make up a massive part of the state ’ s workforce , which lends itself to a somewhat transient population as workers move in and out depending on the season .
Here ’ s more from Peters : Even those who live in the state year-round can be tough to reach because they ’ re not necessarily keeping traditional 9-to-5 shifts , and could be working early mornings or late nights in the casinos , restaurants , and bars that make up the Las Vegas and larger Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets amplified when there are additional factors to take into account , like the nearly 75,000 Nevada caucus-goers who have already cast a ballot through early voting .
All of this is a long way of saying that Nevada is the most difficult early state to poll , and the polls we have likely aren ’ t capturing everything that ’ s happening on the ground .

The few polls we have heading into the Nevada caucuses are clear: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is on the rise.
Political experts on the ground also say the Vermont senator is the favorite to win the caucuses, but many are watching to see if former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) can turn their campaigns around in Nevada, or if former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg can continue his momentum in a state far more diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire.
Much could change between now and when the caucuses kick off on Saturday, February 22, at 1 pm PT/3 pm ET. The field of candidates is still massive after Iowa and New Hampshire, and the chaos of Iowa’s caucuses earlier this month is a good reminder we could be in for a long day of counting votes.
There’s a dearth of polling in Nevada, compared to the first two states: There have been just three polls conducted so far in February (plus one poll of just Latino voters), compared to about 20 polling updates in the days before the New Hampshire primary. And it’s not just the lack of polls; the caucus system is complicated, and the transient state population is inherently difficult to poll accurately.
Still, let’s look at the data we have. The current RealClearPolitics Nevada average finds Sanders with a 13-point lead over his closest competitor, Biden. All February polls found Sanders in first place by enough to be outside the margin of error.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal poll of voters conducted from February 11 to 13 found him leading with 25 percent support, followed by Biden at 18 percent and Warren at 13 percent. The Data for Progress poll conducted from February 12 to 15 found Sanders with a double-digit lead with 35 percent of likely caucus-goers supporting him, followed by Warren at 16 percent, Buttigieg at 15 percent, and Biden at 14 percent.
Newer polls show a similar picture. Emerson College/8 News Now Poll of Nevada caucus-goers conducted February 19 and 20 found Sanders at polling at 30 percent, Buttigieg at 17 percent, Biden at 16 percent, Warren at 12 percent, and Klobuchar at 11 percent. And another Data for Progress poll conducted from February 19 to 20 shows Sanders at 32 percent, followed by Warren at 17 percent, Buttigieg at 15 percent, and Biden at 14 percent.
Taken together with previous polls from January, it starts to paint a picture, according to Jon Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent and dean of the state’s political press corps.
“The polling to me is suspect, but since you have three or four polls showing the same thing, you start to have validation,” Ralston told Vox in an interview.
The race is tighter looking at a poll of just Latino likely voters. Latinos make up 30 percent of the state’s population and accounted for 19 percent of Democratic voters in 2016, so their votes matter. A February 10-13 Telemundo/Mason-Dixon Strategy poll found Biden in a narrow lead at 34 percent, compared to Sanders at 31 percent. The rest of the candidates were in single digits among these voters. There’s a distinct generational split here; young Latino voters prefer Sanders while older ones like Biden.
It’s worth repeating that these are just a few polls; furthermore, they give an incomplete picture of what could happen Saturday, when Nevadans will head to their local precincts to sort themselves into groups depending on which candidate they like. If, however, their favorite candidate falls short of the 15 percent threshold, they’ll have a chance to switch in a second “realignment.” Nevada will report both of those tallies, as well as the number of county delegates each candidate wins.
As Ralston recently tweeted, polls are just measuring the first alignment and not the second. In other words, things could and likely will change on caucus day.
One thing to remember about any polls in Nevada for a caucus: Not only do they mean very little because this turnout is in such flux, but they only measure the first alignment. It does not measure what might happen in precincts where a candidate does not reach 15% viability.
1/2 — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 18, 2020
But interviews with campaign staff and political experts on the ground in Nevada show a growing consensus that with Sanders’s comfortable lead, the real race is for second or third place.
“I think we’re starting to figure out who is going to be first here — maybe,” said Rebecca Katz, who served as communications director for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “But we don’t know who is going to be second through sixth, and it could be almost any combination.”
Sanders is looking strong
All major caveats about Nevada’s lack of polling aside, the conventional wisdom on the ground is that Sanders is the frontrunner.
Beyond the RealClearPolitics state polling average showing Sanders at 30 percent, FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast gives Sanders a 76 percent chance of winning the most votes in the Nevada caucuses.
There are a few reasons for Sanders’s dominance here. He’s riding a high from winning the popular vote in Iowa (albeit basically tying Buttigieg in that state’s traditional metric of success, state delegate equivalents) and narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary last week (though he also tied Buttigieg for delegates there). Furthermore, Sanders has built a strong operation in the state to capitalize on this momentum.
“He carried over most of those average supporters he had four years ago,” veteran Nevada Democratic strategist Billy Vassiliadis told Vox in an interview. “Those folks stayed active, they stayed loyal, they’re Bernie folks.”
Sanders’s campaign has been organizing for the past 10 months. With over 200 staff on the ground (more than the Biden, Buttigieg, or Warren camps), they’ve been calling, texting, and knocking on doors all over the state. And they’ve put special emphasis on organizing voters of color to turn out; organizing communities of color is “baked into everything that we do,” Sanders’s Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me.
“Going where people are, when they are, and organizing them at all hours — Las Vegas is a very working-class town,” she added. “It does take more to organize working-class people.”
National polls show Sanders is leading among Latino voters — which make up a substantial chunk of Nevada’s population. A February Morning Consult tracking poll found Sanders at 42 percent among Hispanic voters, followed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg at 20 percent and Biden at 14 percent. The Nevada Telemundo poll showed a much closer race between Sanders and Biden among Latino voters, but nationally, Sanders’s natural strength with young voters is boosting him in this demographic — which tends to be younger.
Even though the all-powerful Culinary Union has made clear it is not a fan of Sanders or his Medicare-for-all plan (which they fear would take away their union health insurance), it has not weighed in and endorsed another candidate. That means no one else is benefiting from the powerful political army the Culinary Union can be.
“If the Culinary [Union] was really, really mad at Bernie, they would have endorsed Biden and gone all out for Biden,” said Ralston. “Even if they had done that, I’m not sure they would have been able to stop Bernie.”
The rest of the field is tightly clustered behind Sanders
The RealClearPolitics tally shows a tightly bunched race among the rest of the candidates: Biden in second at 16 percent, Warren in third at 14.5 percent, and Buttigieg in fourth at 12.5 percent. Bloomberg is not on the ballot here, but billionaire Tom Steyer and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are still in the mix.
Biden and Warren badly need things to go right in Nevada.
A loss here could be especially damaging for Biden, who came in fourth place in Iowa and fifth place in New Hampshire. He has little room for error in Nevada, especially because it’s the week before South Carolina. His campaign has emphasized that Biden’s path to victory runs through diverse states with nonwhite voters, and this is his first chance to prove it. A Biden campaign aide in Nevada said they feel good about their “competitive” operation in the state.
Biden’s team “knows this is the make-or-break time,” Ralston said. “If he’s an also-ran in Nevada after being an also-ran in the first two states, his ‘firewall’ is gone.”
Warren is also looking for a second wind after placing a decent third in Iowa and a disappointing fourth in New Hampshire. Her campaign is riding a new wave of momentum from her searing debate performance in Las Vegas Wednesday night, where she roasted Bloomberg and pretty much everyone else onstage — raising an eye-popping $2.8 million from supporters by the end of the night. Allies are hailing it as the start of her comeback, but we won’t know until Saturday if it actually worked.
Even candidates who are riding momentum out of New Hampshire could hit a snag in Nevada. Klobuchar saw a surprise bump out of the New Hampshire primary on February 11, but she’s scrambling to size up a small campaign in the state. Even with large crowds, polls show her falling behind with nonwhite voters.
“The uphill battle is introducing her to people who weren’t familiar with her,” a Klobuchar staffer told Vox. “We’re trying to be as aggressive as we can.”
Buttigieg faces a similar problem with nonwhite voters, but his advantages lie in his substantial staff and organization in the state. Multiple experts said Buttigieg has put real work into Nevada in the past year, and he has the most to gain if he wins here and disproves the narrative that he can’t garner support from nonwhite voters. Ralston said he wouldn’t be surprised if Buttigieg comes in second.
A successful Nevada win “underscores he’s top tier,” Vassiliadis said. “He has money, he’s got solid organization in Super Tuesday states.”
Buttigieg is trying to make as many introductions to nonwhite voters as he can. He has barnstormed the state with a dozen events in the past week, and his campaign said they’re getting more people signing up to volunteer or work as precinct captains on their behalf.
“We were a little bit late to the game here relative to other candidates,” a Buttigieg staffer told Vox. “We definitely feel the momentum here on the ground.”
There’s a big caveat: Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll
Nevada’s caucus system is a big part of what makes it a difficult state to poll. As Ralston tweeted, polls are just measuring what might happen on a first alignment, but won’t capture what the caucus results will look like after the supporters of low-performing candidates realign to their second choice.
There are plenty of other reasons the state is tricky, which Vox’s Cameron Peters recently explained in depth. One of the big ones is that the Nevada caucuses are new on the scene, and it takes more time for pollsters to accurately model caucus results. Peters writes:
The Iowa caucuses are a well-established tradition dating back to the 1970s, but Nevada’s caucuses are relatively new. The relative newness of the caucuses means that pollsters have not had time to build the sort of infrastructure and state expertise that was developed over decades in Iowa.
Not only is the polling infrastructure tough to develop in Nevada, but the state’s population itself is hard to reach. Tourism and entertainment make up a massive part of the state’s workforce, which lends itself to a somewhat transient population as workers move in and out depending on the season. Here’s more from Peters:
Ralston says that is because the state has a “fluctuating population,” in large part due to its heavy reliance on the tourism and casino industries. Nevada’s population can be transient, and can wax and wane seasonally. Telephone polls become difficult to conduct in these conditions because as FiveThirtyEight points out, a sizable segment of likely voters does not have local cell phone numbers, numbers in public records may belong to those no longer living in the state, and newer residents are less likely to be registered — or even eligible — to vote.
Even those who live in the state year-round can be tough to reach because they’re not necessarily keeping traditional 9-to-5 shifts, and could be working early mornings or late nights in the casinos, restaurants, and bars that make up the Las Vegas and larger Nevada workforce.
Of course, that difficulty gets amplified when there are additional factors to take into account, like the nearly 75,000 Nevada caucus-goers who have already cast a ballot through early voting.
All of this is a long way of saying that Nevada is the most difficult early state to poll, and the polls we have likely aren’t capturing everything that’s happening on the ground.


vox--2020-02-22--Nevada Democratic caucuses: Live results

The Nevada caucuses — the third contest in the Democratic nomination process — took place Saturday , and we are now waiting for the results to be tallied .
Sen. Bernie Sanders is widely viewed as the favorite to win the caucuses , but with polling being difficult and sparse , no one is entirely sure where things stand .
Meanwhile , former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are both hoping to revive their campaigns by performing strongly , and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are trying to prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As with the Iowa caucuses , the results will be ... complicated .
Like Iowa , there are three sets of results from Nevada .
First there ’ s an initial round of voting .
Then supporters of poorly performing candidates ( who are below 15 percent in the precinct ) can realign and switch to back someone else — following which , precincts will tally up the second and final vote total .
In each precinct , then , candidates get awarded county convention delegates based on how they did in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegate totals get added up statewide , and that ’ s the main metric determining who “ wins ” Nevada and who will get its national delegates .
We ’ ll track it live here as it comes in , thanks to our friends at Decision Desk , and the other results further down on this page .
As for when the results will be final — that isn ’ t entirely clear .
Iowa Democrats were infamously plagued by problems including technical difficulties and didn ’ t report any caucus results until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their plan is to report results on caucus day , but if they encounter similar issues , it could take longer .
Indeed , Nevada faces an added complication as compared to Iowa — they ’ ve incorporated early voting in their caucuses this year .
Nearly 75,000 Nevada Democrats cast “ ranked choice ” ballots in adcance , ranking at least three and up to five candidates in order of their preference .
So when each precinct caucus realigned , that precinct ’ s early votes were revealed .
If an early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonviable after realignment , their vote was then redistributed to the highest-ranking choice who is viable .
At least , that ’ s how it was supposed to work — a complex process like this provides many opportunities for messy human error , as we ’ ve seen in Iowa .
Let ’ s walk through how the caucus process unfolded in a little more detail .
It began when , at each precinct , attendees divided into groups based on which candidate they support .
Then , the first-choice early votes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the precinct ’ s Round 1 vote is tallied .
We ’ ll track how that goes here : Next , supporters ( either in-person or early voters ) for any candidate at 15 percent of the vote in each precinct were locked in — those candidates became officially viable .
But anyone who initially backed a candidate with less than 15 percent of the vote then got the chance to realign .
They can back a viable candidate , combine forces to get a nonviable candidate over the 15 percent threshold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once the in-person realignment concludes , there ’ s the early vote redistribution .
That is : Each early voter whose first-choice candidate ended up nonviable will have their vote moved over to their highest-ranked candidate who is viable .
So , for instance , if an early voter ranked Joe Biden first , Amy Klobuchar second , Tom Steyer third , Pete Buttigieg fourth , and Elizabeth Warren fifth — but only Warren and Bernie Sanders ended up viable in their precinct — this vote would be distributed to Warren .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be tallied in each precinct ( combining the realigned in-person vote and the redistributed early vote ) .
We ’ ll display those numbers here as they come in .
After that is when delegates come in .
Each of the nearly 2,000 precincts in Nevada has been assigned a specific number of county convention delegates , based on how many registered Democratic voters are in the precinct .
Some precincts have just one delegate , some have dozens — you can review the whole list here .
So in each precinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among viable candidates proportionally according to the final vote total .
Rounding comes into play here , because delegates are people and don ’ t get split up fractionally .
( If there ’ s a tie , there ’ s a distinctly Nevadan solution : Cards will be drawn , with the high card determining the winner ) .
Regional discrepancies in support can also come into play , as they did in Iowa ( where Sanders led the statewide final vote , but Buttigieg currently has a narrow lead in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates are traditionally used to determine the “ winner ” in Nevada .
But that ’ s not the end of things either — the delegates to the Democratic National Convention have to get allotted , too .
( It is these national delegates , after all , that will determine the Democratic nominee in the end . )
Some of these national delegates will be allotted proportionally based on the statewide results — but , to prevent things from being too simple , some will depend on the proportional results in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter as well .
Nevada will send 36 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention .
And of these : • 13 will be allotted based on statewide results • 5 will be allotted based on results in the 1st congressional district • 6 will be allotted based on the results of the 2nd district • 6 will be allotted in the 3rd district • 6 will be allotted in the 4th district If a candidate doesn ’ t clear 15 percent in a district , they ’ ll get none of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , it ’ s possible for geographic differences in support to affect the outcome .
It ’ s a complicated process .
But Nevadans are betting that they can pull it off better than Iowa did — and that , if this gamble pays off , they could make a case to be the first state to vote rather than the third next time around .

Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada caucuses — the third contest in the Democratic nomination process — according to a call by Decision Desk.
The win is Sanders’s most decisive yet and makes clear, if there was any doubt, that he is the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination.
Like Iowa, there are three sets of results from Nevada. First there’s an initial round of voting. Then supporters of poorly performing candidates (who are below 15 percent in the precinct) can realign and switch to back someone else — following which, precincts will tally up the second and final vote total.
In each precinct, then, candidates get awarded county convention delegates based on how they did in the final vote total. Those county convention delegate totals get added up statewide, and that’s the main metric determining who “wins” Nevada. The other results further down on this page. (Sanders is the clear leader by all three metrics.)
As for when full results will be in — that isn’t entirely clear. Nevada Democrats are trying to rigorously vet the results before reporting them, to avoid problems similar to Iowa’s.
How the Nevada caucuses work
Let’s walk through how the caucus process unfolded in a little more detail.
It began when, at each precinct, attendees divided into groups based on which candidate they support. Then, the first-choice early votes for each candidate were revealed. After that, the precinct’s Round 1 vote is tallied, below:
Next, supporters (either in-person or early voters) for any candidate at 15 percent of the vote in each precinct were locked in — those candidates became officially viable.
But anyone who initially backed a candidate with less than 15 percent of the vote then got the chance to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to get a nonviable candidate over the 15 percent threshold, or back no one at all.
Once the in-person realignment concludes, there’s the early vote redistribution. That is: Each early voter whose first-choice candidate ended up nonviable will have their vote moved over to their highest-ranked candidate who is viable.
So, for instance, if an early voter ranked Joe Biden first, Amy Klobuchar second, Tom Steyer third, Pete Buttigieg fourth, and Elizabeth Warren fifth — but only Warren and Bernie Sanders ended up viable in their precinct — this vote would be distributed to Warren.
The final vote total was then tallied in each precinct (combining the realigned in-person vote and the redistributed early vote), below:
After that is when delegates come in.
Each of the nearly 2,000 precincts in Nevada has been assigned a specific number of county convention delegates, based on how many registered Democratic voters are in the precinct. Some precincts have just one delegate, some have dozens — you can review the whole list here.
So in each precinct, the delegates were split up among viable candidates proportionally according to the final vote total. Rounding comes into play here, because delegates are people and don’t get split up fractionally. (In the case of a tie, there’s a distinctly Nevadan solution: Cards were drawn, with the high card determining the winner). Regional discrepancies in support can also come into play, as they did in Iowa (where Sanders led the statewide final vote, but Buttigieg currently has a narrow lead in the delegate metric).
However, it’s already clear that Nevada’s results won’t be as close as Iowa. Sanders has clearly won Nevada according to all three metrics.
Don’t forget national delegates, either
The county convention delegates are traditionally used to determine the “winner” in Nevada. But that’s not the end of things either — the delegates to the Democratic National Convention have to get allotted, too. (It is these national delegates, after all, that will determine the Democratic nominee in the end.)
Some of these national delegates will be allotted proportionally based on the statewide results — but, to prevent things from being too simple, some will depend on the proportional results in each of Nevada’s four congressional districts matter as well.
Nevada will send 36 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. And of these:
13 will be allotted based on statewide results
5 will be allotted based on results in the 1st congressional district
6 will be allotted based on the results of the 2nd district
6 will be allotted in the 3rd district
6 will be allotted in the 4th district
If a candidate doesn’t clear 15 percent in a district, they’ll get none of that district’s delegates. So here as well, it’s possible for geographic differences in support to affect the outcome.
It’s a complicated process. But Nevada managed to pull it off better than Iowa did — and could make a case to be the first state to vote rather than the third next time around.


vox--2020-02-22--Culinary Union members seem to have broken from their leaders to back Sanders

Share All sharing options for : Culinary Union members seem to have broken from their leaders to back Sanders Early reports suggest a surprising upset of sorts in the Nevada caucuses — Culinary Union members broke from their leadership and caucused in wide numbers for Sen. Bernie Sanders , according to longtime Nevada journalist Jon Ralston .
In recent weeks , Sanders — running as a champion of labor — has been dealing with a scandal involving the Nevada Culinary Workers Union Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165 .
Union leaders released an informational flyer critical of his Medicare-for-all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away Culinary Union members ’ health care .
Union leaders faced very public harassment from some claiming to be Sanders supporters .
Yet as caucus returns began to trickle in on Saturday , it appears the conflict wasn ’ t really between Sanders and union workers , but with leaders .
The scandal heated up in the runup to Nevada because the union can mobilize its 60,000 members , using them to ensure Democratic candidates win at the local , state , and federal levels .
Early data seems to show that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneficiary of those votes .
A flyer on health care dropped the Culinary Union into the middle of a nasty debate In the wake of the New Hampshire primary , the Culinary Union drew national attention for a leaflet it produced comparing the leading candidates ’ health care proposals .
The flyer identified Sanders as the candidate who would “ end Culinary Healthcare ” given his support for Medicare-for-all , a summary some Sanders supporters felt was more an attack and less a précis of policy .
The flyer quickly became a source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of racist , sexist , political , and professional attacks against both Culinary Union ’ s Secretary-Treasurer Geoconda Argüello-Kline and union spokesperson Bethany Khan .
“ Two minority women , women of color , and they don ’ t say one word to the president who is a white man , ” Argüello-Kline said .
“ And I feel happy they don ’ t touch him , they don ’ t say anything to him , but I see difference in how we ’ ve been treated , and that ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these attacks do appear to have come from those expressing support for Sanders , but as Zeeshan Aleem has explained for Vox , the provenance of these attacks isn ’ t clear in every case , with at least some coming from conservatives opposed to Medicare-for-all .
They nevertheless led to a condemnation from Sanders , who said in a statement , “ Harassment of all forms is unacceptable to me , and we urge supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks , ” as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox the flyer was not meant to be an attack on Sanders , but a brief , comprehensive summary of the candidates ’ various stances on health care — an issue of great import to Culinary Union members , who have won through hard-fought negotiations what the secretary-treasurer said is “ the best health care in Nevada.
” “ The intent was to repeat what Sen. Sanders said , ” Argüello-Kline said .
“ We did not change what he said .
He ’ s been saying that on TV .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has .
He ’ s been saying that on the radio .
He ’ s been saying that in the newspaper .
He even said it in the [ Culinary Union ’ s ] town hall .
...
The only thing we did is put in writing what he says.
” The union health plan covers more than 130,000 people statewide and actually functions in a manner similar to how insurance would work under Sanders ’ s Medicare-for-all proposal : You go to your doctors and you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , [ with commercially available ] health insurance , I need to pay for me , for my daughter , very expensive , every month , ” union member Mirtha Rojas told PBS NewsHour .
“ In the union , [ I ] don ’ t pay nothing.
” It ’ s the strength of this plan that makes the union against Medicare-for-all , according to Argüello-Kline , who said , “ Give the government health care to people [ who ] don ’ t have [ any ] .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something you already have ?
” “ We want the best health care for every human being , ” she added , suggesting the government adopt a model like Australia ’ s .
“ In some countries you have the government health care and the private health care .
And that ’ s what we ’ re looking for.
” But according to MSNBC ’ s Chris Jansing , some union members said Saturday that they are concerned about being able to meet their health care needs should they lose their jobs — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still have insurance should that happen .
Rebecca Gill of the University of Nevada Las Vegas told Vox that union leaders are likely concerned about what the union itself might stand to lose should Medicare-for-all somehow become a reality .
“ Part of the power the union has — well , the key power — is negotiating these contracts , ” Gill said .
“ And really , the medical plans , this is one of the main areas of negotiation that they have .
So it is a source of power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this relatively better plan than most Americans get .
So I think from the perspective of the union , it ’ s essentially taking a tool out of their toolbox.
” As with any organization that relies on collective action , a large part of the union ’ s influence stems from its numbers ; a reduction in size would dilute its power .
This incident with the flyer , is , however , a good reminder of just how much influence the union wields and to what extent those outside Nevada understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbing hate were just trolls , and although there is no excuse for any candidate ’ s supporters being cruel , the response is a testament to the fear these supporters had that this flyer would derail their candidate — a fear that ultimately seems to have been unfounded .
Conversely , an endorsement from the union was widely seen as something that would provide the recipient with great momentum headed into the caucuses — and was something openly coveted by candidates in need of an eleventh-hour boost like former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time The union called a press conference to announce its endorsement last Thursday , and as Vox ’ s Dylan Scott reported , Argüello-Kline surprised observers by declaring , “ We ’ re going to endorse our goals .
... We ’ re not going to endorse a candidate.
” “ An endorsement would be controversial .
...
Looking from the outside , I ’ m not surprised they decided not to endorse , because this allows their members to vote their conscience , ” Gill said , adding , “ Creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage might be counterproductive for those efforts to get out the vote in November.
” And indeed , Argüello-Kline said the union really has only one goal : “ We want to elect a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party and defeat President Trump — that ’ s our mission right now.
” The union has made it clear its preference is a candidate who does not back Sanders ’ s Medicare-for-all legislation as it is currently written , but it has increasingly pivoted away from trying to guide the primary process through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through educational material instead .
In part , this may be because its last caucuses endorsement did not go well — its 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama divided its members and led to ugliness and resentment throughout the process .
Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign was not pleased with the decision , Clinton supporters in other unions launched lawsuits , and an angry Bill Clinton lashed out at the press and was accused by some of trying to unfairly pressure union members at caucus sites .
And after all this , the union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ win.
” Clinton received more votes , although Obama came away with more delegates — 13 to her 12 .
And many union members were vocal about their frustration with the entire endorsement process .
Member Steve Gelt told the New York Times that union leaders were “ bullying and threatening us to vote for Obama.
” This sort of dissatisfaction led the union to abstain from the 2016 caucuses , despite both Clinton and Sanders lobbying for its backing .
It did endorse Clinton in the November contest in what appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the union — one it showed signs of perfecting in 2018 .
A brief history of the Culinary Union An affiliate of Unite Here — a union with more than 300,000 members across the country — the Culinary Union is Nevada ’ s largest and reflects the state ’ s diversity ; more than half of its members are women , and more than half are Latinx .
Throughout its history , the union has served as a platform to eke out benefits for workers in the state ’ s entertainment industry and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with four other unions — the US ’ s longest continuous labor action : a 24/7 , nearly 6.5-year strike demanding the Frontier Hotel come to the negotiating table over wages and benefits .
The hotel eventually closed and was replaced in part by a Trump hotel , which in 2015 faced a similar strike over its management ’ s refusal to acknowledge its workers ’ union — a strike that led to the Trump organization acquiescing to members ’ requests during his first campaign for president .
Those sorts of wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union , which , over more than 80 years , has become an established part of the community , offering free job training , its own health care services , assistance with becoming a US citizen , and serving as an important springboard for Democrats running for office .
As University of Nevada Las Vegas professor David Damore told Messerly in 2016 , “ They ’ re not going to be able to go dollar for dollar against the Koch brothers , but Culinary is the best ‘ get out the vote ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the union ’ s power , look no further than the 2018 midterm election cycle .
The union registered 10,000 people to vote and spent months canvassing ; it claims to have knocked on nearly 400,000 doors in the state .
Its efforts also included a digital , video , and radio advertising campaign as well as massive direct-to-voter outreach featuring 1.7 million pieces of US mail , more than half a million phone calls , and tens of thousands of emails and texts .
The effort — all of it in service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — paid off , with the Democratic Party winning back a US Senate seat , successfully defending two US House seats , and expanding its hold on the state legislature ( while also becoming the first state in US history to have the majority of its lawmakers be women ) .
The election also brought the state its first Democratic governor in 20 years , Steve Sisolak .
In his acceptance speech , Sisolak promised to support those union workers who helped deliver his victory , leading them in chanting , “ Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this success , Argüello-Kline said , is that the union is incredibly organized , disciplined in its messaging , and able to drive not just its 60,000 members to the polls , but their families and friends as well : “ We organize everybody in the family , ” she said .
“ Our role is to be sure the members , they vote , and they understand how important it is to vote , ” Argüello-Kline added .
“ We work really hard all the time making phone banks .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we have internal organizers talking to them , how important it is to show up to vote.
” What the union does if it doesn ’ t endorse The union now sees its role as an educator and a conduit to drive high voter participation .
The educational piece is done through flyers , like the one on health care that became such a source of controversy , but also through candidate town halls and the aforementioned direct-to-voter efforts .
In order to encourage high attendance , the union has worked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites at its members ’ workplaces — including a 24-hour early caucus site at the Bellagio hotel — and made its union hall an early caucus site as well .
“ We ’ ve been working intensely to bring them to the caucus sites where they can vote early , ” Argüello-Kline said .
“ And that has been successful.
” On Wednesday , the last day for early caucusing , Argüello-Kline said union leaders arrived to open the hall and found 1,500 people waiting to fill out their early caucuses forms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reported the early voting totals have nearly matched the total caucuses turnout in 2016 , with roughly 70,000 people having now already caucused ( around 84,000 caucused in 2016 , when there was no early caucusing ) .
Maintaining that level of enthusiasm — and directing it behind the Democratic ballot , including the eventual nominee — in November is top of mind for union leaders , who signaled ahead of the results favoring Sanders that they would mobilize behind whoever the eventual nominee is .
“ This year is a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think the people is the power of the union , and we communicate with the workers all the time .
And they understand why they have to be active .
”

Share All sharing options for: Culinary Union members seem to have broken from their leaders to back Sanders
Early reports suggest a surprising upset of sorts in the Nevada caucuses — Culinary Union members broke from their leadership and caucused in wide numbers for Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to longtime Nevada journalist Jon Ralston.
Damn: Now looks like Bernie has won caucuses at Bellagio, Mandalay, Park MFM, Rio, and Wynn, tied at Harrah’s and lost Paris. He is the Culinary workers’ candidate! — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 22, 2020
In recent weeks, Sanders — running as a champion of labor — has been dealing with a scandal involving the Nevada Culinary Workers Union Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165. Union leaders released an informational flyer critical of his Medicare-for-all plan that stated Sanders wanted to take away Culinary Union members’ health care. Union leaders faced very public harassment from some claiming to be Sanders supporters.
Yet as caucus returns began to trickle in on Saturday, it appears the conflict wasn’t really between Sanders and union workers but with their leaders.
The scandal heated up in the run-up to Nevada because the union can mobilize its 60,000 members, using them to ensure Democratic candidates win at local, state, and federal levels. Early data seems to show that, in the end, Sanders was the beneficiary of those votes.
A flyer on health care dropped the Culinary Union into the middle of a nasty debate
In the wake of the New Hampshire primary, the Culinary Union drew national attention for a leaflet it produced comparing the leading candidates’ health care proposals. The flyer identified Sanders as the candidate who would “end Culinary Healthcare” given his support for Medicare-for-all, a summary some Sanders supporters felt was more an attack and less a précis of policy.
Since the whole political world will now be watching whether @Culinary226 endorses someone in Nevada, which would be a genuine earthquake, here’s the candidate policy explainer they’ve sent to members: pic.twitter.com/X3Cgvr3YAX — Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) February 12, 2020
The flyer quickly became a source of controversy and led to a series of racist, sexist, political, and professional attacks against both Culinary Union’s Secretary-Treasurer Geoconda Argüello-Kline and union spokesperson Bethany Khan.
“Two minority women, women of color, and they don’t say one word to the president who is a white man,” Argüello-Kline said. “And I feel happy they don’t touch him, they don’t say anything to him, but I see [a] difference in how we’ve been treated, and that’s been Bernie Sanders supporters.”
A number of these attacks do appear to have come from those expressing support for Sanders, but as Zeeshan Aleem has explained for Vox, the provenance of these attacks isn’t clear in every case, with at least some coming from conservatives opposed to Medicare-for-all.
They nevertheless led to a condemnation from Sanders, who said in a statement, “Harassment of all forms is unacceptable to me, and we urge supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks,” as well as critiques from other candidates.
Argüello-Kline told Vox the flyer was not meant to be an attack on Sanders, but a brief, comprehensive summary of the candidates’ various stances on health care — an issue of great import to Culinary Union members, who have won through hard-fought negotiations what the secretary-treasurer said is “the best health care in Nevada.”
“The intent was to repeat what Sen. Sanders said,” Argüello-Kline said. “We did not change what he said. He’s been saying that on TV. He’s been saying that in every commercial that he has. He’s been saying that on the radio. He’s been saying that in the newspaper. He even said it in the [Culinary Union’s] town hall. ... The only thing we did is put in writing what he says.”
The union health plan covers more than 130,000 people statewide and actually functions in a manner similar to how insurance would work under Sanders’s Medicare-for-all proposal: You go to your doctors and you don’t have to worry about out-of-pocket costs.
“For example, [with commercially available] health insurance, I need to pay for me, for my daughter, very expensive, every month,” union member Mirtha Rojas told PBS NewsHour. “In the union, [I] don’t pay nothing.”
It’s the strength of this plan that makes the union against Medicare-for-all, according to Argüello-Kline, who said, “Give the government health care to people [who] don’t have [any]. But why do you have to give up something you already have?”
“We want the best health care for every human being,” she added, suggesting the government adopt a model like Australia’s. “In some countries, you have the government health care and the private health care. And that’s what we’re looking for.”
But according to MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, some union members said Saturday that they are concerned about being able to meet their health care needs should they lose their jobs — and that Medicare-for-all would ensure they would still have insurance should that happen.
Rebecca Gill of the University of Nevada Las Vegas told Vox that union leaders are likely concerned about what the union itself might stand to lose should Medicare-for-all somehow become a reality.
“Part of the power the union has — well, the key power — is negotiating these contracts,” Gill said. “And really, the medical plans, this is one of the main areas of negotiation that they have. So it is a source of power, their ability to encourage membership by providing this relatively better plan than most Americans get. So I think from the perspective of the union, it’s essentially taking a tool out of their toolbox.”
As with any organization that relies on collective action, a large part of the union’s influence stems from its numbers; a reduction in size would dilute its power. This incident with the flyer, is, however, a good reminder of just how much influence the union wields and to what extent those outside Nevada understand that influence.
Although some of those lobbing hate were just trolls, and although there is no excuse for any candidate’s supporters being cruel, the response is a testament to the fear these supporters had that this flyer would derail their candidate — a fear that ultimately seems to have been unfounded.
Conversely, an endorsement from the union was widely seen as something that would provide the recipient with great momentum headed into the caucuses — and was something openly coveted by candidates in need of an eleventh-hour boost like former Vice President Joe Biden.
What happened with the endorsement this time
The union called a press conference to announce its endorsement last Thursday, and as Vox’s Dylan Scott reported, Argüello-Kline surprised observers by declaring, “We’re going to endorse our goals. ... We’re not going to endorse a candidate.”
“An endorsement would be controversial. ... Looking from the outside, I’m not surprised they decided not to endorse, because this allows their members to vote their conscience,” Gill said, adding, “Creating some sort of conflict at the caucus stage might be counterproductive for those efforts to get out the vote in November.”
And indeed, Argüello-Kline said the union really has only one goal: “We want to elect a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party and defeat President Trump — that’s our mission right now.”
The union has made it clear its preference is a candidate who does not back Sanders’s Medicare-for-all legislation as it is currently written, but it has increasingly pivoted away from trying to guide the primary process through direct endorsements and toward wielding its influence through educational material instead.
In part, this may be because its last caucuses endorsement did not go well — its 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama divided its members and led to ugliness and resentment throughout the process.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not pleased with the decision, Clinton supporters in other unions launched lawsuits, and an angry Bill Clinton lashed out at the press and was accused by some of trying to unfairly pressure union members at caucus sites.
And after all this, the union’s candidate didn’t actually “win.” Clinton received more votes, although Obama came away with more delegates — 13 to her 12. And many union members were vocal about their frustration with the entire endorsement process. Member Steve Gelt told the New York Times that union leaders were “bullying and threatening us to vote for Obama.”
This sort of dissatisfaction led the union to abstain from the 2016 caucuses, despite both Clinton and Sanders lobbying for its backing. It did endorse Clinton in the November contest in what appears to have become the new model for the union — one it showed signs of perfecting in 2018.
A brief history of the Culinary Union
An affiliate of Unite Here — a union with more than 300,000 members across the country — the Culinary Union is Nevada’s largest and reflects the state’s diversity; more than half of its members are women, and more than half are Latinx.
Throughout its history, the union has served as a platform to eke out benefits for workers in the state’s entertainment industry and is perhaps best known for supporting — along with four other unions — the US’s longest continuous labor action: a 24/7, nearly 6.5-year strike demanding the Frontier Hotel come to the negotiating table over wages and benefits. The hotel eventually closed and was replaced in part by a Trump hotel, which in 2015 faced a similar strike over its management’s refusal to acknowledge its workers’ union — a strike that led to the Trump organization acquiescing to members’ requests during his first campaign for president.
Those sorts of wins are par for the course for the union, which has been an established part of the community for over 80 years. It has offered free job training, its own health care services, and assistance with becoming a US citizen, and it’s served as an important springboard for Democrats running for office.
As University of Nevada Las Vegas professor David Damore told Messerly in 2016, “They’re not going to be able to go dollar for dollar against the Koch brothers, but Culinary is the best ‘get out the vote’ in town.”
For a test of the union’s power, look no further than the 2018 midterm election cycle. The union registered 10,000 people to vote and spent months canvassing; it claims to have knocked on nearly 400,000 doors in the state. Its efforts also included a digital, video, and radio advertising campaign as well as massive direct-to-voter outreach featuring 1.7 million pieces of US mail, more than half a million phone calls, and tens of thousands of emails and texts.
The effort — all of it in service of the race’s Democratic candidates — paid off, with the Democratic Party winning back a US Senate seat, successfully defending two US House seats, and expanding its hold on the state legislature (while also becoming the first state in US history to have the majority of its lawmakers be women). The election also brought the state its first Democratic governor in 20 years, Steve Sisolak.
In his acceptance speech, Sisolak promised to support those union workers who helped deliver his victory, leading them in chanting, “Union, union!”
The secret to this success, Argüello-Kline said, is that the union is incredibly organized, disciplined in its messaging, and able to drive not just its 60,000 members to the polls, but their families and friends as well: “We organize everybody in the family,” she said.
“Our role is to be sure the members, they vote, and they understand how important it is to vote,” Argüello-Kline added. “We work really hard all the time making phone banks. We have 1,000 rank-and-file leaders inside the hotels, and we have internal organizers talking to them, how important it is to show up to vote.”
What the union does if it doesn’t endorse
The union now sees its role as an educator and a conduit to drive high voter participation. The educational piece is done through flyers, like the one on health care that became such a source of controversy, but also through candidate town halls and the aforementioned direct-to-voter efforts.
In order to encourage high attendance, the union has worked to expand poll access, pushing for caucusing sites at its members’ workplaces — including a 24-hour early caucus site at the Bellagio hotel — and made its union hall an early caucus site as well.
“We’ve been working intensely to bring them to the caucus sites where they can vote early,” Argüello-Kline said. “And that has been successful.”
On Wednesday, the last day for early caucusing, Argüello-Kline said union leaders arrived to open the hall and found 1,500 people waiting to fill out their early caucuses forms. Ralston, founder of the Nevada Independent, reported the early voting totals have nearly matched the total caucuses turnout in 2016, with roughly 70,000 people having now already caucused (around 84,000 caucused in 2016, when there was no early caucusing).
Maintaining that level of enthusiasm — and directing it behind the Democratic ballot, including the eventual nominee — in November is top of mind for union leaders, who signaled ahead of the results favoring Sanders that they would mobilize behind whoever the eventual nominee is.
“This year is a very important year,” Argüello-Kline said. “I think the people is the power of the union, and we communicate with the workers all the time. And they understand why they have to be active.”


vox--2020-02-22--Why Nevada caucuses are sometimes decided by drawing a card

Bernie Sanders ’ s side got the low card , and Pete Buttigieg ’ s team broke the tie .
At the Nevada caucuses , if two candidates end up with a tie after two rounds of voting , the winner is determined by drawing a card out of a card deck .
High card wins , of course .
Accounts from reporters and election workers on the ground indicate that at several of the many caucus sites around the state on Saturday , participants had to resort to cards because of a tie .
It ’ s a Vegas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state has for its elections and caucuses .
Here are the full rules for a Nevada caucus card draw , via Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop : • Deck of cards must be shuffled at least seven times by precinct chair or site lead It appears to have happened several times on Saturday .
But even a handful of card draws like this would determine a very , very small number of the delegates that will be won at the caucuses .
Winning a caucus site with a good card draw means winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately mean the candidate wins more delegates for the 2020 Democratic National Convention .
That is the objective of the whole primary : A candidate must win more than half of the nearly 4,000 delegates up for grabs across 50 states and a handful of territories to win the nomination before the convention this summer .
A small number of those delegates are going to be won through card draws , coin flips , and pulling a name out of a hat .
At the Iowa caucuses , they would flip a coin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drew a name out of a hat .
( Virginia had to pull a name out of a hat because of a tie in a 2017 state legislative race that actually determined control of the state house . )
We saw the card draw again in Reno on Saturday .
If you want to know exactly the Nevada caucuses are conducted , Prokop has it covered : It begins when , at each precinct , attendees will divide into groups based on which candidate they support .
Then , the first-choice early votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next , supporters ( either in-person or early voters ) for any candidate at 15 percent of the vote in each precinct will be locked in — those candidates are officially viable .
But anyone who initially backed a candidate with less than 15 percent of the vote now gets the chance to realign .
They can back a viable candidate , combine forces to get a nonviable candidate over the 15 percent threshold , or back no one at all .
Once the in-person realignment concludes , there ’ s the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early voter whose first-choice candidate ended up nonviable will have their vote moved over to their highest-ranked candidate who is viable .
After this , the final vote total will be tallied in each precinct ( combining the realigned in-person vote and the redistributed early vote ) .
After that is when delegates come in .
Each of the nearly 2,000 precincts in Nevada has been assigned a specific number of county convention delegates , based on how many registered Democratic voters are in the precinct .
So in each precinct , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates proportionally according to the final vote total .
Rounding comes into play here , because delegates are people and don ’ t get split up fractionally .
( If there ’ s a tie , there ’ s a distinctly Nevadan solution : Cards will be drawn , with the high card determining the winner ) .
It looks early on caucus day like Sanders will perform strongly in Nevada , probably on his way to an expected victory .
But his delegate majority won ’ t be won at the above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t win on a two-card .

Bernie Sanders’s side got the low card, and Pete Buttigieg’s team broke the tie.
At the Nevada caucuses, if two candidates end up with a tie after two rounds of voting, the winner is determined by drawing a card out of a card deck. High card wins, of course.
Accounts from reporters and election workers on the ground indicate that at several of the many caucus sites around the state on Saturday, participants had to resort to cards because of a tie. It’s a Vegas spin on the tie-breaking process that every state has for its elections and caucuses.
Here are the full rules for a Nevada caucus card draw, via Vox’s Andrew Prokop:
Deck of cards must be shuffled at least seven times by precinct chair or site lead
Jokers and extra cards removed
Suit order: spades highest, then hearts, diamonds, clubs
Aces are high
It appears to have happened several times on Saturday. But even a handful of card draws like this would determine a very, very small number of the delegates that will be won at the caucuses.
Half of the 4 precincts I chaired this morning were determined by cards. Both were small precincts only awarding 1 delegate. #NVCaucus
1 to Pete
1 to Warren pic.twitter.com/P4MydINNfJ — R. Armstrong (@RossEArmstrong) February 22, 2020
Winning a caucus site with a good card draw means winning more county convention delegates, which may ultimately mean the candidate wins more delegates for the 2020 Democratic National Convention. That is the objective of the whole primary: A candidate must win more than half of the nearly 4,000 delegates up for grabs across 50 states and a handful of territories to win the nomination before the convention this summer.
A small number of those delegates are going to be won through card draws, coin flips, and pulling a name out of a hat. At the Iowa caucuses, they would flip a coin; for a three-way tie, they drew a name out of a hat. (Virginia had to pull a name out of a hat because of a tie in a 2017 state legislative race that actually determined control of the state house.)
We saw the card draw again in Reno on Saturday.
Buttigieg beat Sanders at a Reno caucus site by pulling a 3 card. Sanders people pulled a 2. #democracy https://t.co/LP9gGTuYk3 — Colby Itkowitz (@ColbyItkowitz) February 22, 2020
If you want to know exactly the Nevada caucuses are conducted, Prokop has it covered:
It begins when, at each precinct, attendees will divide into groups based on which candidate they support. Then, the first-choice early votes for each candidate will be revealed. Next, supporters (either in-person or early voters) for any candidate at 15 percent of the vote in each precinct will be locked in — those candidates are officially viable. But anyone who initially backed a candidate with less than 15 percent of the vote now gets the chance to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to get a nonviable candidate over the 15 percent threshold, or back no one at all. Once the in-person realignment concludes, there’s the early vote redistribution. That is: Each early voter whose first-choice candidate ended up nonviable will have their vote moved over to their highest-ranked candidate who is viable. After this, the final vote total will be tallied in each precinct (combining the realigned in-person vote and the redistributed early vote). After that is when delegates come in. Each of the nearly 2,000 precincts in Nevada has been assigned a specific number of county convention delegates, based on how many registered Democratic voters are in the precinct. So in each precinct, the delegates will be split up among viable candidates proportionally according to the final vote total. Rounding comes into play here, because delegates are people and don’t get split up fractionally. (If there’s a tie, there’s a distinctly Nevadan solution: Cards will be drawn, with the high card determining the winner).
It looks early on caucus day like Sanders will perform strongly in Nevada, probably on his way to an expected victory. But his delegate majority won’t be won at the above caucus site in Reno. You can’t win on a two-card.


vox--2020-02-22--Nevada’s entrance polls look good for Bernie Sanders

Voting is underway in the Nevada caucuses .
While we are still waiting for official results , we have some numbers from early entrance polls — and they look good for Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) .
First , the usual disclaimer about entrance polls : They don ’ t always capture the results accurately and have been wrong before .
In the past , some entrance polls have discounted Latino voters , appearing to skew the results for a different candidate before the actual votes came in .
Numbers from entrance polls are still rolling in as pollsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the early data from major TV networks and newspapers is showing Sen. Bernie Sanders in the lead .
NBC has a poll of Nevadans who voted during the state ’ s early voting period , based on interviews of 2,122 voters ’ initial preferences .
Per NBC ’ s Steve Kornacki , Sanders is strong in multiple categories ; the NBC poll shows Sanders leading among white voters ( which make up about 66 percent of Nevada voters ) and with a wider lead among Hispanic voters ( about 17 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden leads among African American voters ( about 10 percent of Nevada voters ) .
Here ’ s the NBC poll breakdown by age .
The candidates are tightly clustered among voters who are over 45 years old , with Biden and Sanders tied among this group .
The poll shows that Sanders appears to be winning the vast majority of younger voters .
The ideological breakdown in the NBC poll also looks good for Sanders .
He has a slight lead among the 34 percent of polled voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Biden and Buttigieg .
CNN ’ s entrance poll numbers are still rolling in .
As with the NBC early vote poll , this entrance poll shows Sanders strong in multiple categories .
CNN ’ s poll found that Sanders had a commanding lead among self-described liberal voters in Nevada .
Here ’ s that ideological breakdown : The CNN entrance poll also found three in five Nevada caucus-goers decided whom they ’ d be voting for before February , compared to two in five voters who reported deciding in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest Nevada voters agree with Sanders on Medicare-for-all : CNN ’ s entrance poll showed 62 percent of Nevadans support the policy .
Washington Post ’ s entrance poll : Biden is up with black voters The Washington Post has also posted entrance poll results , which are being updated as the Post conducts more interviews .
Its entrance polls also show Sanders winning in many key categories .
Here ’ s what the poll shows so far : Breakdown among gender : Men make up 46 percent of voters , and women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ’ s demographics breakdown ; it shows white voters making up 65 percent of the total electorate , Hispanic/Latino voters 18 percent of the electorate , and black voters 11 percent of the total .
The Post ’ s age breakdown shows Sanders leading most age categories , save for voters 65 and older , most of whom support Biden .
The Post ’ s poll shows similar results for ideology as CNN and NBC ’ s polls .
Here ’ s the ideology breakdown : The Washington Post Nevada entrance poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they supported creating a single-payer health care system , even if it meant eliminating private insurance .
It ’ s worth repeating that it ’ s still early and we are still waiting for final results .
But , added up , these seem like promising numbers for Sanders .

Voting is underway in the Nevada caucuses. While we are still waiting for official results, we have some numbers from early entrance polls — and they look good for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
First, the usual disclaimer about entrance polls: They don’t always capture the results accurately and have been wrong before. In the past, some entrance polls have discounted Latino voters, appearing to skew the results for a different candidate before the actual votes came in.
Numbers from entrance polls are still rolling in as pollsters continue to interview voters. That said, the early data from major TV networks and newspapers is showing Sen. Bernie Sanders in the lead.
NBC poll of early voters: Sanders ahead with early voters
NBC has a poll of Nevadans who voted during the state’s early voting period, based on interviews of 2,122 voters’ initial preferences. Per NBC’s Steve Kornacki, Sanders is strong in multiple categories; the NBC poll shows Sanders leading among white voters (which make up about 66 percent of Nevada voters) and with a wider lead among Hispanic voters (about 17 percent of Nevada voters). Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden leads among African American voters (about 10 percent of Nevada voters).
Here’s the NBC breakdown among demographics:
White voters
Sanders — 31 percent
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — 18 percent
Sen. Amy Klobuchar — 13 percent
Sen. Elizabeth Warren — 13 percent
Biden — 12 percent
Hispanic voters
Sanders — 51 percent
Biden — 13 percent
Buttigieg — 10 percent
Businessman Tom Steyer — 9 percent
Warren — 8 percent
Klobuchar — 6 percent
Black voters
Biden — 36 percent
Sanders — 25 percent
Steyer — 13 percent
Warren — 13 percent
Klobuchar — 3 percent
Buttigieg — 2 percent
Here’s the NBC poll breakdown by age. The candidates are tightly clustered among voters who are over 45 years old, with Biden and Sanders tied among this group. The poll shows that Sanders appears to be winning the vast majority of younger voters.
Voters over 45 years old
Biden — 20 percent
Sanders — 20 percent
Buttigieg — 16 percent
Klobuchar — 15 percent
Warren — 13 percent
Steyer — 11 percent
Voters under 45 years old
Sanders — 60 percent
Buttigieg — 13 percent
Warren — 11 percent
Biden — 5 percent
Klobuchar — 3 percent
The ideological breakdown in the NBC poll also looks good for Sanders. He has a slight lead among the 34 percent of polled voters who identify as moderate or conservative, followed by Biden and Buttigieg.
Self-identified moderate/conservative voters
Sanders — 23 percent
Biden — 22 percent
Buttigieg — 20 percent
Klobuchar — 14 percent
Steyer — 10 percent
CNN entrance poll: Latino voters could give Sanders a boost
CNN’s entrance poll numbers are still rolling in. As with the NBC early vote poll, this entrance poll shows Sanders strong in multiple categories.
Here’s the CNN breakdown among demographics:
White voters
Sanders — 30 percent
Buttigieg — 19 percent
Klobuchar — 14 percent
Warren — 14 percent
Biden — 12 percent
Hispanic voters
Sanders — 54 percent
Biden — 14 percent
Buttigieg — 9 percent
Steyer — 7 percent
Warren — 7 percent
Black voters
Biden — 34 percent
Sanders — 28 percent
Steyer — 17 percent
Warren — 12 percent
Klobuchar — 3 percent
CNN’s poll found that Sanders had a commanding lead among self-described liberal voters in Nevada. Here’s that ideological breakdown:
Liberal voters
Sanders — 52 percent
Warren — 17 percent
Biden — 9 percent
Buttigieg — 8 percent
Klobuchar — 8 percent
The CNN entrance poll also found three in five Nevada caucus-goers decided whom they’d be voting for before February, compared to two in five voters who reported deciding in the past month.
Early polling also seems to suggest Nevada voters agree with Sanders on Medicare-for-all: CNN’s entrance poll showed 62 percent of Nevadans support the policy.
Washington Post’s entrance poll: Biden is up with black voters
The Washington Post has also posted entrance poll results, which are being updated as the Post conducts more interviews. Its entrance polls also show Sanders winning in many key categories. Here’s what the poll shows so far:
Breakdown among gender: Men make up 46 percent of voters, and women 54 percent.
Men
Sanders — 39 percent
Buttigieg — 16 percent
Biden — 15 percent
Warren — 10 percent
Klobuchar — 9 percent
Women
Sanders — 31 percent
Biden — 15 percent
Buttigieg — 14 percent
Warren — 14 percent
Klobuchar — 12 percent
Here’s the Post’s demographics breakdown; it shows white voters making up 65 percent of the total electorate, Hispanic/Latino voters 18 percent of the electorate, and black voters 11 percent of the total.
White voters
Sanders — 30 percent
Buttigieg — 19 percent
Klobuchar — 14 percent
Warren — 14 percent
Biden — 12 percent
Hispanic/Latino voters
Sanders — 54 percent
Biden — 14 percent
Buttigieg — 9 percent
Warren — 7 percent
Klobuchar — 5 percent
Black voters
Biden — 34 percent
Sanders — 28 percent
Warren — 12 percent
Klobuchar — 3 percent
Buttigieg — 2 percent
The Post’s age breakdown shows Sanders leading most age categories, save for voters 65 and older, most of whom support Biden.
Voters ages 17 to 29
Sanders — 68 percent
Buttigieg — 10 percent
Biden — 7 percent
Warren — 6 percent
Klobuchar — 2 percent
Voters ages 30 to 44
Sanders — 49 percent
Warren — 15 percent
Buttigieg — 15 percent
Biden — 5 percent
Klobuchar — 5 percent
Voters ages 45 to 64
Sanders — 27 percent
Buttigieg — 18 percent
Biden — 15 percent
Warren — 14 percent
Klobuchar — 11 percent
Voters age 65 and older
Biden — 27 percent
Klobuchar — 20 percent
Sanders — 13 percent
Buttigieg — 13 percent
Warren — 10 percent
The Post’s poll shows similar results for ideology as CNN and NBC’s polls. Here’s the ideology breakdown:
Very liberal voters
Sanders — 52 percent
Warren — 16 percent
Buttigieg — 9 percent
Biden — 9 percent
Klobuchar — 5 percent
Somewhat liberal voters
Sanders — 31 percent
Buttigieg — 16 percent
Warren — 14 percent
Klobuchar — 13 percent
Biden — 13 percent
Moderate or conservative voters
Sanders — 24 percent
Biden — 22 percent
Buttigieg — 19 percent
Klobuchar — 13 percent
Warren — 7 percent
The Washington Post Nevada entrance poll also showed that six in 10 voters said they supported creating a single-payer health care system, even if it meant eliminating private insurance.
It’s worth repeating that it’s still early and we are still waiting for final results. But, added up, these seem like promising numbers for Sanders.