Even if the fondest hopes of Nevada caucus organizers are realized, turnout will be low — just like it is in Iowa

Nevada Democratic officials say they hope to get as many as 100,000 Democrats to participate in the party's presidential preference caucus on Jan 19, 2008.

There were not quite a half-million Democrats in Nevada as of last election day, according to the Secretary of State's office. Voter registration will likely grow over the next year, of course, but barring some massive registration surge, if interest in the second-in-the-nation caucus is as big as organizers hope, turnout will be, oh, maybe 20 percent of the state's registered Democrats.

The Nevada caucus, its boosters say, is significant not only because it's early, but also because it is the first time in modern memory that a Western state will play a significant role in the process of selecting a presidential nominee. And Democrats are convinced that bringing the West to bear on the party's nomination is, as Ms. Stewart used to be fond of saying, a good thing.

"The Democratic Party's ability to win presidential campaigns in the future will hinge on our ability to win voters in the West," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week. Reid was starring in an event that announced the formation of the Nevada Caucus Commission and unveiled a schedule of Nevada debates and forums.

A "Nevada Caucus Commission statement" asserts that "the new Nevada Caucus will serve to strengthen the Democratic nominating process." Commission members -- basically any Nevada Democrat who has ever had their name in a newspaper -- along with representatives from the state's political industry tout the importance of the Nevada caucus because it will, at long last, bring Western issues such as growth and water and public lands to the forefront of the presidential campaign.

Even if that were true (doubtful), it's not clear that it is desirable; individuals vying to lead a nation out of a complex military quagmire and assorted international threats should not be selected or rejected based on, say, their preferred methodology for establishing grazing fees on public lands.

In addition to Nevada Democrats, the Caucus Commission also includes leading figures from national organized labor, some of whom were on on hand to announce the Commission's formation last week. Those leaders did not stress the importance of Nevada as a Western state, but the importance of Nevada as a union state, and suggested the key impact of the early caucus would be that it would put union issues at the front and center of the presidential selection process.

Meantime, Nevada party activists and officials acknowledge that the true significance of the Nevada caucus is not so much the issues addressed by the candidates, be they of the Western, union or Western union variety. Rather, the Big Local Point of the caucus is the opportunity to build the party's infrastructure.

Nevadans, after all, will be given a rare and, to some, exciting chance to have a say in the presidential selection process. Surely, nothing can do as much to activate and motivate voters, and since there is not likewise a Republican caucus, the Democratic caucus effectively gives the state party an organizational and even inspirational leg up on its Republican opposition. Or it should.

But with only a 20 percent turnout?

As it happens, even that 20 percent may be wildly optimistic.

In 2004, about 124,000 Democratic voters participated in the Iowa caucuses out of perhaps 680,000 Democratic voters in the state, said Jean Hessberg, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. Hessberg was hired late last year to help Nevada throw a successful caucus.

After decades of being in the national media spotlight as the first-in-the-nation caucus state, Iowa's Democrats, the old hands at meaningful, decisive caucuses, produced the Dean scream, the end of Gephardt, the rise of Edwards and the Kerry nomination while sporting a turnout of a little more than 18 percent.

Hessberg points out that such is the nature of a caucus -- particularly in Iowa, where participants vote not just on presidential candidates but party platform planks, local party officials and other issues. It is not simply a matter of walking into a voting booth, punching a screen and slapping an "I Voted" sticker on your lapel. 

At least the Nevada caucus will be more about picking the presidential candidate and less about insider party machinations than Iowa's, which is to say Nevada's caucus is targeted at voters, and not just activists, Hessberg noted. 

And even with the relatively small voter turnout, the Nevada Democratic Party is going to have to engage hundreds of people to organize, host and assist with caucus meetings in each of the more than 1,000 precincts around the state. "New people have to be brought in, there's no way that can be avoided," Hessberg said.

And that in turn will help the party develop its infrastructure and be more competitive against Republicans, both in the general election for president in November 2008, and in state and local races as well.

At least that's the idea.

Comments (89)

Subscribe to this comment's feed