Nevada in Perspective VS. 2008

[robert9712000]

Well like most everyone i was pretty disappointed at first but i got to looking at the results from 2008 and its not as bad as it appears and heres why.

If you take the results from 2008 http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NV.html

There was a total of 44315 votes in 2008 ,compare that to 32894 in 2012,so the difference is...

I went Ahead and edited the numbers to the actual results

Total Votes 44315(2008)-32894(2012) = -11421 (-26%)
Romneys Totals 22646(2008)-16486(2012) = -6160 (-27.3%)
Pauls Totals 6084(2008)- 6175(2012) = +91 (+1.0%)

so the real story is the low turnout rate compared to 2008 but we actually gained a little.So as much as I'd like 2nd,its not as bad as you'd think upon first glance.

[jamezelle]

Only issue is that its 84.2% of precincts reporting not % of total votes. There could still be some very large precincts that haven't reported yet.

[Nathan Hale]

Who knows, perhaps some of the precincts that have yet to report are college precincts?

[justatrey]

But why the low turnout? I know that they started early at 9 AM, and if you're late you're out of luck, but was it any different in 2008?

I wonder how many new voters in Nevada are completely ignorant about caucuses and thought they could vote at any time as in a primary? Just listen to this guy:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1774281/pg1

[Mickeys]

Only issue is that its 84.2% of precincts reporting not % of total votes. There could still be some very large precincts that haven't reported yet.

IT goes both ways. The remaining precincts could be very SMALL precincts, or ones with establishment voters.

Serously people...reality is NOt that bad a place to live. Try it sometimes.

[robert9712000]

I went ahead and updated the numbers to the final results