5 Takeaways from the Democratic Nevada Caucuses

Candidates take part in the ninth Democratic 2020 U.S. Presidential debate ahead of the Nevada Caucuses. REUTERS/Mike Blake -/File Photo

After the long drawn out drama of Iowa and the predictability and mini-Klobasurge in New Hampshire, with just over half of the results from the Nevada Caucus this Saturday, a slightly clearer picture is emerging about the state of the 2020 Democratic primary race.

Here are my five key takeaways from the third of four stops in the early voting states …

Bernie Sanders has momentum and is the clear frontrunner for the nomination

Some parallels between the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries thus far have been striking for Sanders: in Iowa, he finished a tight second to Clinton in ’16 and Buttigeig in ’20, followed by a predicted victory in New Hampshire both years. In 2016, however, Nevada, with its more diverse population, was the point where Clinton started to move away from Sanders. This cycle is different. Although winning effectively the same percentage of votes in the state (47.3% in 2016 and 46.6% in 2020 [with 50% precincts reporting]), Sanders has dramatically expanded his coalition of support, while maintaining the youth support he generated four years ago. Exit polling suggests he won more than ½ of Hispanic caucus goers, 4 times as many as his nearest rival Joe Biden; he has significant majority of support from those with and without a college degree, as well as those living in a union household and those in non-union households; the latter being a significant marker of his support in a state as union-focused as Nevada. In 2016, he did not have the broad and diverse base of demographic support necessary to win the nomination. On the evidence from Nevada, he has built – or at least is building – that support.   

The Nevadan result for Sanders is significant in terms of its timing as well. Having demonstrated that he can form a diverse coalition of support in such a crowded field – something that so far had been lacking based on his 2016 primary performance and the results from Iowa and New Hampshire this year – there is every possibility that moving into Super Tuesday, and particularly the delegate rich states of California and Texas, Sanders could build on this momentum and by the middle of March hold effectively an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Such is Sanders’ confidence that he spent polling day campaigning in Texas and intends to spend this coming week campaigning in California.

This leads on to the second big takeaway …

Concern in traditional Democratic circles at the possibility of a Sanders nomination

Firstly, there is concern around electability. In short, can a self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist who seeks to upend the so-called political establishment with that most un-American of things –  a revolution – defeat Donald Trump in the currently deeply fractured and polarised political environment? The reality is that Democrats won back control of the House of Representatives in November 2018 with wins in moderate Democratic districts. These seats were won by swinging independent and some college educated Republicans over to the Democrats. That winning formula for the party is not found in the left leaning Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez/Bernie Sanders lane of the party, but in the more centrist leaning Conor Lamb/Kyrsten Sinema lane.

In turn, this has a potential impact on down ballot races for the Democrats. The top of the ticket candidate traditionally holds significant influence in House and Senate races. As the party found in 2016, an unpopular presidential candidate can result in Democrats being locked out of the White House and both chambers of Congress, whereas in 2012, a number of vulnerable Senate seats were secured on the coattails of a popular candidate in Barack Obama.

Secondly, there are some concerns around the type of campaign a potential candidate Sanders would run. In the week leading up to the Nevada caucus, Sanders spoke and tweeted about his desire to defeat the Democratic establishment as well as Republican party (in order to win in November Sanders would need this so-called ‘establishment’ in terms of both support and money), and also attacked some corners of the press and media – notably the Washington Post – as biased against his campaign. In some respects this mirrors, in terms of a simple political narrative, Trump’s 2016 campaign as a Washington outsider fighting against party establishment and traditional media. Indeed, Sanders’ victory remarks on Saturday night – his first chance to make his case to a huge media audience as the clear victor and party frontrunner – were marked by an anger and frustration that so far has not been as evident in his stump speeches. These actions, along with Sanders’ tendency not to disavow perceived damaging remarks, for example around gun control or support for leaders in the USSR and Venezuela, is raising concerns for some in the Democratic party looking ahead to the general election. 

The divisions in the Democratic Party that emerged in 2016 and have been simmering since then are likely to be a significant issue as the primary trail moves to South Carolina and beyond.

Health care is the key domestic issue that is moving the Democratic Primary

Health care is an issue that has bubbled under the surface of the primary up until the past week. It has acted as a bit of silent candidate killer – Kamala Harris never recovered from her early multiple misspeaks on her position on Medicare-for-All and so far, Elizabeth Warren has failed to regain her top-tier status following her attempts to explain how she would pay for her health care plan. But, overall, the issue of electability has been the preferred differentiating tool. In Nevada that all changed.

The big pre-caucus story was the power of the Culinary Union in the state, the fears expressed among union members about losing their substantial health benefits if Medicare-for-All was introduced and the intimidation and threats received by Union leaders by some supporters of Bernie Sanders. Indeed, it was telling that all the candidates bar Bernie Sanders joined the Culinary Union workers march. This issue formed a substantial component of the debate on Wednesday night, and commentary suggested it could be decisive in garnering support for moderate candidates, in particular Joe Biden.  

While, in reality it did not have the impact some suggested it could on the voters – exit polls found that Sanders had a lead of 19% with caucus goers who identified health care as their top priority and massive 33% lead with those supporting changing to a single government health plan – it does nevertheless highlight that, among the candidates at least, health care is being used as a key differential. As the debate moves forward, it will be interesting to see how much the health care argument becomes an explicit proxy for the state of the Democratic Party itself and the future direction of its policy platform.

What happened to the post-debate surge for Elizabeth Warren?

Emerging from the debate having garnered the loudest plaudits from commentators and on social media for her performance in Wednesday night’s debate, it was anticipated that Elizabeth Warren could repeat Amy Klobuchar’s late New Hampshire surge. That didn’t happen. Warren finished a distant fourth, trailing Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg. The reason for this could be a mixture of timing and the new Nevada caucus process. According to exit polling, 83% of caucus-goers had made decisions “before the past few days,” meaning that Warren’s ‘fighter’ debate performance would not have impacted those decisions. This added to the introduction of early voting in Nevada may have significantly closed Warren’s opportunity to capitalise on her debate performance in the same way Amy Klobuchar did.

Interestingly though, Warren’s campaign manager, Roger Lau, noted that internal campaign figures indicated a 50% rise in the Warren vote between early-voting and caucus day. If this bears out, combined with her significant post-debate fund raising and the opportunity of another debate this coming Tuesday, Warren could be a dark horse for performing well on Super Tuesday. But, it could also be that it is a case of ‘too little, too late.’