January 18th, 2008
04:58 PM ET

Gambling on Nevada’s caucuses?


Las Vegas Strip (PHOTO CREDIT: AP)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The show will go on, and so will the caucuses, in some Las Vegas casinos.

That's because a federal judge has refused to shut down nine casino-based locations for tomorrow's Nevada caucuses.

The decision is seen as a boost for Barack Obama, since he's been endorsed by the union that represents many of the shift workers who will use those casino locations to caucus.

The lawsuit had been brought by a state teachers' union that's endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the fallout over this case led to a dispute between the two campaigns.

The Clinton people deny playing any formal role in the lawsuit, but they are critical of the casino caucuses. They say the system "seems to benefit other campaigns" and is "unfair".

For his part, Obama welcomed the judge's decision, saying anything else would have meant disenfranchisement for many who work on the Vegas strip - people like maids, dishwashers and bellhops - all members of the culinary workers union that endorsed him.

The rules for holding the caucuses were set by Nevada state Democratic Party leaders.

Here’s my question to you: Do you see anything wrong with Nevada holding caucuses in casinos?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Cody writes:
Everyone has the right to vote and I think it is a very positive thing that they are able to make arrangements for people who are tied to a certain location to vote. Since when does it matter where one votes so long as they are voting? Great decision from the judge.

Dennis from Santa Ana, California writes:
How would requiring casino workers to caucus at locations other than their workplace have diluted their vote? Are casino workers the only caucus participants? How are they different from any other employee? This clearly provides an unfair advantage to a segment of the Nevada population, how can it not? More importantly, this demonstrates the weakness of caucusing in that the requirement to be physically present restricts who can attend.

James writes:
Jack, They should hold the caucuses wherever and whenever Americans can get there. It's the caucuses that are held at 8pm on Thursday and last until midnight that keep most working class Americans at home, concerned more with work the next day.

Thomas from South Carolina writes:
It doesn't sound any more idiotic than squeezing 50 people into someone's living room in Iowa. At least they will have cocktail waitresses.

D.J. from Iowa writes:
I think the only way it is unfair is that not all businesses can caucus at the workplace. If it were to be fair, they would allow all business to hold caucuses to ensure that all working individuals are given the same right to vote.

Evan writes:
Not at all. As long as we aren't hitting the bookies and plopping down the wife's savings all on Kucinich, I think we'll be fine.

Erik writes:
Casinos in Nevada are just not the place to hold an election. They are busy and to be honest slightly vulgar. The atmosphere just isn't right. If you want an honest election then they should be held in some place respectable.

Beau writes:
Jack, Have you ever been to Nevada? There is nothing but casinos. Where else are they going to hold the caucuses?

Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (179 Responses)
  1. rex d savage

    i think the caucuses should be held at a public school during teaching hours,

    is that asinine enough for you?

    January 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  2. Ted Portland

    It's a natural thing for Las Vegas. Sure, there's the culinary union, but for caucuses held in schools, there's the teachers union. Maybe for construction workers, it should be held at Home Depot. Who cares? These are Americans excercizing their right to make a choice. It's called voting. So, to all petty whiners, especially Bill and his running mate Hillary... deal with it.

    January 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  3. Pop Goes the Weasel

    Hell no! That's all Nevada has is Casino's and hookers. Where else are they going to vote the Elvis Presley wedding chappel? Uhh Uhh Uhh Im all shook up!

    January 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  4. Patricia

    My problem with holding the caucuses in casinos is many of the workers are illegal immgrants & what will stop them from casting votes at the casino?

    January 18, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  5. David of Natchez

    No problem and with no clear leader in this bunch how about a game of cards to decide who wins.

    January 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  6. Scott

    not at all, but the other large employers such as schools, government buildings with large #s of employees.
    Scott Missouri

    January 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  7. Ralph

    Jack, if this allows more people to have their say, who may not because they need to work, then so be it. However, if voting in casinos means there is undo for any particular candidate and/or one vote in the casino is worth five (for example) votes anywhere else, then it is wrong, and goes against the principal of allowing everyone to cast a vote of equal strength without influence,

    January 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  8. earl illingsworth

    Jack, just like Iowa's straw pull, these caucuses do nothing but pander to a group of delegates whose self interest far outweigh their constituients! Nevada is nothing more than a blackberry convention ripe with corruption and collusion. The candidates once again have, put themselves first. I see the outcome as being no different then the "hanging chads" incident. Hard to believe we have evolved so quickly in just seven short years

    January 18, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  9. Bertha Armstrong

    Yes, caucuses in the casinos is a bad idea. Nevada should have a primary system if they want people to be able to take part even if they have to work that day. If they tried to hold a caucus at every work place where people had to work on caucus day, places like gas stations, grocery stores, department stores, etc would each have to have a caucus. Ridiculous.

    January 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  10. Ken

    Absolutly not. They could hold them in the WC's if the result was that the middle class majority is heard. But I doubt the candidates are listening as they seem to busy with pointing fingers at each other to escape facing our issues.

    January 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  11. Bill PA

    Nevada is known for gambling and the news media is always telling us who is the odds on favor to win and I'm sure you'll be hearing that reference in the news coverage leading up to the final vote in Nevada. So so why not hold caucuses in the appropriate place? And leave the news media have their fun in comparing gambling and holding carcasses in the casinos.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  12. Norm

    Why not we vote and get married in churches just like casinos.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  13. joe m

    why is this a problem? didn't the dems agree to this a long time ago? if there was something wrong with this, someone should have rasied a stink when it first came up. sounds to me that some people are just unhappy b/c the advantage is no longer on their side. what was that saying about making your own bed... time to sleep in it.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  14. JoAnn in Iowa

    No–the more people that participate, the better. The Clintons thought it was a good idea, too, until the union supported Obama. Sometimes it is confusing whether Hillary is running for president or whether Bill is running for a 3rd term. No wait-it's the same thing.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  15. Melvin

    Yes, it is calling pandering to the elite rich corporations and their cheap labor.
    The ways things are in this country right now we might as well put the election out to the highest bidder and save all the lip service we have to endure for the rest of the year. Might help pay off some of the national debt!

    January 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  16. Alan


    It doesn't matter whether a caucus is held in a casino, school auditorium, restaurant or an outhouse. We live in a participatory democracy (I hope) & as long as we get people participating, that's the most important thing.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  17. Karl in SF

    No, Nevada is Nevada and , Jack, you if anyone, knows it's an entity unto itself. It isn't California, New York, Iowa or Florida. Nevada is casinos and just about everything else is done in them, so why not caucus', too?

    January 18, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  18. JoAnn in Iowa

    I think it is a great idea. It increases voter participation. Even the Clintons thought it was a great idea until the culinary union decided to support Obama. Now they think it is a bad idea. Sometimes it is confusing whether Hillary is running for president or Bill is running for a 3rd term as president. No wait-that's the same thing.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  19. Karen


    No. If you are going to have a caucus, it doesn't matter where you do it. Caucuses are undemocratic. Why should casino owners, unions and union reps have any less political power than neighbors? This would just be disenfranchising power.

    I have no issue going into a room with my union rep (my supervisor at work) to vote. The person who decides how much I am paid, whether I am part of a lay-off or get a promotion should have absolute control over my vote.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  20. Ryan Hutsell

    It wouldn't be my first choice as a caucus location, but I think its more about candidates trying to spin things you have one saying we have to protect the voters interest full well knowing that the union supports him and the other knowing that those votes will hurt her chances. Maybe they will all just vote for Edwards....or better yet Ron Paul.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  21. Sharon

    It is important to open the caucuses to as many voters as possible. However, I wouldn't want to caucus in front of my co-workers, managers and union representatives. It is one thing to caucus in front of your neighbors, and another to have to stand up for the candidate you feel is best if it could mean putting your job on the line, or creating friction with people you interact with on a professional basis.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  22. john

    Yes, considering a casino worker union already endorsed a candidate, there is a huge conflict. It would be akin to the UAW endorsing a candidate and holding Michigan primaries inside auto plants.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  23. Tina

    Good grief no. If they can hold porn conventions in some of the hotels then why not a caucus? Just about the same principle.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  24. Dennis

    People in casino's know how to count, thank god there opening up in Florida now

    January 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  25. Charles Liken

    I don't have a problem with Casinos. My problem is with the caucus itself. The fact that a small state can wield this much influence with a procedure that does not begin to approach one man one vote should give everyone pause. This process invites intimidation, especially when there is the possibility of casino votes being worth much more than other votes.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  26. bnthdntht

    That's the most undemocratic thing I ever heard of maybe they should stop by certain people houses.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  27. Paul

    No. If you think voting is more important than work you gotta be way off the real life. Primary means nothing, good that lots of people can participate in this election. Like come on, more votes casted means more voters, isn't it an ultimate goal of "democracy"?

    January 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  28. John Hanson

    Nothing is wrong with anything which facilitates greater participation in the electoral process. The fact that caucusing is allowed in a part of the private sector which is the life blood of Nevada makes it all the healthier.

    What seems wrong is when unions with a membership which rarely work on a Saturday, have three months off each year and have tenured positions; file a law suit to stop the use of casinos under the banner of fairness.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  29. Alex Smith

    I believe it is unfair, and not just to the candidates. If a person that works at a construction site can't get off work to poll but you have Ed down the street that can and does it right there on a 15 min break where is the fariness in that? You are telling people that your vote is not as important then these people just because of the union that is involved. Would this be even a question if the union did not exist, No. Because a everyday person or people could never get this kind of process to happen.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  30. Bert D

    Since none else has commented on this I thought I would. I don't see anything wrong with holding caucuses in the casinos. But after spending more than two hours standing around at my Iowa caucus I came to the conclusion that the exact same result could be acomplished in a primary vote using ballots incorporating instant runoff voting. You'd get to vote for your first, second, and third choices, you could do it in 5 minutes and many more people would be willing and/or able to participate. The results, being more inclusive, would be more representative of the will of the voters.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  31. Jim Bloom

    No. It is no different than having voting polls at factories, office buildings and other places of work. The only difference here is that these hotels have casinos attached to them. Perhaps this is something we should explore for future elections. What is the worst that can happen? Higher turnout?!

    January 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  32. Joy

    You're talking about people that live in Vegas! Why should voting in a casino bother anyone that's sincere about voting. I'd say their vote would be one of the biggest gambles they'll ever take, not the casinos.

    January 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  33. JoAnn Hardy--Iowa

    No-we need more participation in the political process. It is a great idea. The Clintons supported the idea until the culinary union decided to support Barack Obama. Suddenly they think it is a bad idea. Sometimes it is confusing whether Hillary is running for president or whether Bill is running for a 3rd term as president. Wait-it's the same thing.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  34. James

    Only Hillary has a problem with this. The caucuses should be where the most votes can be brought letting the people speak. Isn't that the idea, the peoples vote.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  35. John from CT

    Caucuses should be fair and inclusive to those who WANT to participate. Since working at the casino would result in being unable to participate in your home precinct, I see nothing wrong with setting up these at-large precincts. This way those who wanted to participate can. But shouldn't those people , who are unable to participate at their home precincts because they are helping to staff schools used as caucus sites, be given the fair and inclusive opportunity.?

    January 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  36. D Moore

    What is a casino? A room with walls and a ceiling and a bunch of tables and chairs. Sounds like any other place caucuses are held in. But I draw the line if they use the dice or roulette wheel to make their decisions.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  37. Steve in Idaho

    The problem is with caucuses is that they are conducted at a specific time of day or night, casino workers are on 24 – 7. I think conducting caucuses in casinos gives a majority of the people a chance to exercise their right to vote. Hillary is the only one that has a real problem with these people voting at work, since most will be voting for Obama.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  38. Richard Vaughan

    As far as the $800, I'll take it, but the reason why the economy is in the tank is this hardheaded, misdirected and painfully expensive Iraq war! Solution: Take 1/2 Iraqii oill production to pay for the war to date and as long as we are there. Iraqis will get their act together almost immediately and our expensive financial bleeding will stop. Problem solved.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  39. Mary Steele Yorktown VA

    I think it's unprofessional/inappropriate because it shuts out religious and other people that do not patron casinos.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  40. Ken KS

    They, the Dems made the decision, so they have to deal with unforeseen consequences, should there be any. Like one reader pointed out, there are a lot of illegal aliens working in those casinos. However, it isn't a black or white issue, both Obama, Hillary AND John Edwards are going to open the borders for amnesty and easy-to the front of the line path way for citizenship. Do the illegals like Hillary or Obama best? That is the question.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  41. suzie from Atlanta, GA

    I think the whole thing is silly.

    Shift workers of all kinds have issues with voting. I do think it's odd that rather than forcing employers to give each employee time off to vote, and moving the shift around to manage this, they force the voter to find a way to make it to the polls or caucus. No wonder we don't vote.

    The decision is confusing. Why would allowing SOME shift workers an unfair advantage over everyone else be democratic? Will this happen at hospitals or all night Pharmacies? Will everyone be able to vote anytime, or just the casino workers? The Teachers, who have NOT endorsed anyone, filed the suit, but what about Sanitary workers, or First Responders? Do they loose their right to vote if they have to work?

    This whole thing is wrong, and slanted to give Obama a win. SUPRISE!!!!

    January 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  42. Daniel From Tempe AZ

    This is Nevada, I just wonder what the bookies are laying odds on this Saturday, football or politics?

    January 18, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  43. Dale Hill

    Problem with caucusing in the Casino is that gambling is a sin, and, thus, the Republicans would win the caucuses. All of them.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  44. Jenny from New York

    No. And neither did Bill Clinton, the teachers' union, or anyone else-until the CWU endorsed Barack Obama.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  45. Nicole

    I don't think there's anything wrong with having the caucuses in the casinos. I thought that we as a people, (and this includes the candidates) want as many people to take part in the caucuses as possible?! I'm not sure why the teachers union would even take this to court considering, last I checked, they don't have to work on Saturdays. Yes, it's making it easier for some, and not all, to take part in the caucuses, but we all know that if the culinary union had remained neutral and not backed Obama, this wouldn't even be an issue.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  46. Audrey Gregg

    What an idiotic and "school yard" question about Blacks and votes. Are you and Wolf running out of intelligent discusion?

    January 18, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  47. Tim

    I don't think there is anything wrong with it Jack. What I do think is wrong is that people can bicker and complain about anything these days. Sure, "let's run and file a lawsuit". That seems to be the quick answer to everything. I think that people should just be proud that we have a democracy in this country. We take a lot of things for granted, and in turn, generation after generation has suffered for it.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  48. David A. Morse, Stoneham, MA


    NO! I don't see anything wrong with Nevada holding caucuses in casinos. As they used to say, why do they rob Banks? Because that's where all the Money is. Well, If these workers can't go to the caucuses than bring them to the voters. Maybe Clinton should stop complaining and move move caucuses to where their voters are. We make it too difficult for voters to vote in America.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  49. Ronald Holst

    frankley I could care less who wins or loose in Navada On In either Party I am A indapendent And They all have made there own beds , as Far a Clinton she has put her self in a box If Obama Wins what Is she going to do Demanand a recount well she could try but it would not go very far especilay when she says there are no illeagle Women in this country So How could she ask for a recount, to only check for illeagle Men I think not. So they alldeserve this mess that they have made.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  50. Charlie

    It was a terrible decision to hold Caucuses in Jan. in Nevada. We are a 24/7 state where many workers work every day including Saturday and Sunday. Holding a caucus in a casino also eliminates voters under 21. The casino environment also lends itself to vote buying and fraud. Many of the casino workers are in housekeeping which is predominately Hispanic and therefore not lending to a level playing field. I vote NO to holding a caucus in any casino.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  51. Karen P

    Let these people vote!!!! Teachers aren't working on Saturday so why should they care...it's just another ploy by the Clintons. It just proves Hillary really ISN'T for the poor working class! The casino workers have to work nights and weekends and would be prevented from their taking part in the election process. Everyone else is not working and can take the time to go to caucuses without losing their jobs or a night's pay. Good grief....let the workers vote!!! We live in a similar "resort area"...Branson. The hotel and food industry workers cannot afford to just take the night off...but in a caucus situation, should have the same voting rights as the teachers who get weeks and months off and do not work at night unless they're attending a basketball game this time of year. And as a former teacher...it's chaos to have to vote while students are in the same building anyway! I'm ashamed of the teachers union that would prevent others from getting a fair chance to vote! How pious can people get! And of course Hillary doesn't want voting on the strip...she knows Obama' s voters are there. It would be unfair advantage to Hillary and quite frankly....I'm sick of her boo-hoo attitude.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  52. jennifer

    i would have to agree with some these comments. voting should not take place in casinos! it should be held in peoples homes like iowa.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  53. Sandy


    There have been so many issues regarding any primary process throughout the U.S., maybe we should have the primary for all States on the same day. The current process allows a canidate to change their views and or what is needed to get votes. Maybe we wouldn't have to hear all of the negativity and the canidates would concentrate more on the issues that are important to the citizens they are wanting to represent.

    Back to the question though is that if there is such a problem with holding the caucuses in casinos, why not close all businesses during this process? This would allow the process to be held in the casinos or where ever they want and then all citizens would have the opprtunity to attend if they wanted to. I'm sure that the cost of closing for a few hours would not have a major impact on their financial futures. Why do we have to have such controversy over the little issues as holding a caucus in a casino, when we have so many more issues that are impacting many Americans on a daily basis?

    Will the location of a caucus or primary vote really make a difference in the outcome? I seriously doubt it, and all this hype is driving me crazy with our current process. I sincerely hope that changes can be made with this process within the next four years so that we, as citizens, really feel we did have a voice.


    January 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  54. Ben

    It all depends on who you support. If the union supported Clinton instead you would have heard nothing from anyone. I don't know what's more sad. That people are suing others to stop them from voting for a candidate they don't support or that politicians think all they have to say to have us believe them is tell us they aren't.

    January 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  55. Gary

    Help I need a Ron Paul fix. Wolfe and yourself are the most fair and treat the good doctor fair and give him some press. Thanks, as most of the media act like he doesn't exist. GO RON PAUL

    January 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  56. Meredyth

    They spend megabucks on campaigns, so isn't this fitting?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  57. Dan

    Well, John, all americans deserve to vote, no matter where they live.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  58. DJ,Iowa

    I think the only way it is unfair is that not all business can caucus at the work place, if it were to be fair, they would allow all business to hold caucus's to ensure that all working individuals are given the same right to vote.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  59. Dan

    Well, Jack, all americans deserve to vote, no matter where they live.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  60. James

    They should hold the caucuses where ever and whenever Americans can get there. It's the caucuses that are held at 8 P.M. on thursday and last until midnight that keep most working class Americans at home, concerned more with work the next day.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  61. Cody Weber

    Everyone has the right to vote and i think it is a very positive thing that they are able to make arrangements for people who are tied to a certain location to vote. Since when does it matter where one votes so long as they are voting. Great decision from the judge.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  62. Thomas, SC

    It doesn't sound any more idiotic than squeezing 50 people into someone's living room in Iowa. At least they will have cocktail waitresses.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  63. kc johnson

    It is the same as meeting in churches, union halls, and schools. You need to go where the voters are.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  64. Evan

    Not at all. As long as we aren't hitting the bookies and plopping down the wife's savings all on Kucinich, I think we'll be fine.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  65. Filipino monkey

    I vote for a brothel caucus.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  66. Corey Walters

    Jack, this sounds like a poor attempt to gain some publicity and a head start in the S.C. Primary on the Republican supporters' part. I don't see how having voting locations at casinos is any worse than having them at churches, where more conservative people are likely to vote.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  67. John

    No! The whole thing is a crap shoot anyway!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  68. Pete C

    Another poster said it's not democratic. To me it seems to be the most democratic thing to do. Regardless of who you support, the people need access to the caucus location, and if the casino is where the people are, thats where it should be.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  69. Dr. Dildar

    why not finally how it really is "Politicians gambling with our furure" wnats new about that.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  70. L Barnett

    I see no problem with holding caucases at casinos.

    Are they going to hold them at the legal brothels, in Nevada?

    If not, why not, those girls are working, also.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  71. Charlie

    I don't see anything at all wrong with some of the caucus locations being casinos...and neither did anyone else, including the Clinton campaign, until 2 days after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. If they would have endorsed Clinton, like everyone thought they would, I doubt there would be any lawsuit. I see it as an act of desperation by Clinton supporters.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  72. John - San Francisco, CA

    Hey, this whole election is a crap shoot, anyway ... so, why not caucus in a Casino?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  73. Geof


    It is only reasonable to hold caucuses in the casinos if they also are holding caucuses at hospitals, factories, the airport, the taxi barn and anywhere else where employees must work on Saturday. What makes casino employees deserve special treatment??

    Midland, MI

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  74. Eileen

    There is nothing to stop the Teacher's Union from hosting a place where their numbers can vote as well...its a free country

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  75. Erik

    Casinos in Nevada are just not the place to hold an election. They are busy and to be honest slightly vulgar. The atmosphere just isn't right. If you want an honest election then they should be held in some place respectable.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  76. Zennie Abraham

    Jack there's nothing wrong with it, and the Clinton's know that the caucus is held on Saturday, when schools are closed. Las Vegas has both a bus and a monorail system such that off-work teachers can get to the strip, and there's nothing to stop them from doing this on a weekend. Also, the Clinton Campaign helped design the caucus expecting the support of the Cullinary Workers Union; then tried to change the rules when they didn't get it, and then got tossed out of court.

    Zennie Abraham, Oakland, CA

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  77. Christopher Dudley

    If Caucuses can be held in school gym's and community centers, why not a casino? The fact that the day was changed to saturday only serves to get more people involved in the electoral process...isn't that the idea?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  78. R. White

    Nothing wrong unless the teacher's union is denied the chance to caucus, too. Seems unfair and wrong-headed to disenfranchise a segment of the electorate.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  79. Jay

    The answer is simple: there is nothing wrong with holding them in conference rooms in hotels and casinos. Hypocrisy was at the heart of this lawsuit by Clinton supporters. Where were they 10 months ago?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  80. John

    Well, where I live in Maryland, you vote in the elementary school up the street. Not sure about the caucus issue, but would it be unfair to a candidate if one got the teachers union on their side...they are already at the school...makes it easy for them too, I guess...oh wait...isn't the teachers union complaining??? My bad!

    John from Westminster

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  81. Al

    Hey, Jack; If an election isn't rigged, fixed, or crooked....isn't it a crap shoot to begin with? So for once we're admitting that every election is a gamble by holding the caucus in a Casino. The winner either represents some powerful group or the winner IS some powerful group. Just like in Vegas, either way we, the common man, LOSES.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  82. JR

    There absolutely isn't anything wrong with holding caucuses in casinos. Actually, it's a good thing because it will ensure solid turnout. Most people in Nevada work in these casinos anyway. Why should they be left out of the decision process altogether? Leaving them out is as bad blowing your entire savings on one crank of the arm on a slot machine! Holding caucuses in the casinos is a safe bet, and ever Lady Luck would agree with me here.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  83. James Richard

    Nothing wrong with it.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  84. Beau


    Have you ever been to Nevada? There is nothing but casinos. Where else are they going to hold the caucuses? The dirt?

    You're the best, Jack!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  85. Cory from WV

    A caucus held in a Las Vegas casino? Now, I am not a gambling man, but I'd like to play some Russian Roulette. I'll bet it all on black!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  86. Deborah

    No Jack I do not considering that picking the right candidate for either party is pretty much a crap shoot anyway!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  87. Mahogany Dudley

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding the caucuses in casinos. In the past there have been complaints about voter turnout. Why wouldn't we make it easier for more people exercise their right? Everyone should really stop splitting hairs about this and concentrate on things that really matter.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  88. Gabe Weis

    Any public building that can hold a decent amount of people should be encouraged as a place for caucus goers. I do not know how any candidate can publicly be on record as wanting less voters voting.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  89. Mike Page

    Caucuses in Casinos? Democracy is democracy, whether its practiced in a whorehouse or a church. What is the problem?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  90. Mike B

    Why should there be anything wrong with it? Opposing a casino-based caucus is tantamount to opposing the rights of casino patrons to vote. Clinton is taking a petty tactic to try to prevent people from voting that will likely not vote in her favor.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  91. Tom

    Caucuses should not be held in the workplace, and certainly not under these particular circumstances. I thought the whole point of caucuses is to call together neighbors to thoughtfully weigh the candidates and declare choices. Holding caucuses in the workplace may enable more people to participate, but they likely will not be with their neighbors, and, if they have to do this over a lunch break, they won't be able to give much thought to it. Another problem with holding the caucuses in the casinos: Given the union's endorsement of Obama, and given the fact that caucus participants must declare their choices, workers will be under a great deal of public pressure to pick Obama.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  92. Mary

    Yes, it is wrong to hold the ccaucus in the casinos. They should go to
    places outside of where they work just like others do. I see this as an unfar
    advantage to other workers. Will there be someone there to check to see if they
    are documented workers or not? Jack qut blaming everything on Hiliary
    and be neutral as all media personnel should be.


    January 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  93. Jim Blevins

    In general, the more participation the better - caucuses in casino's is a great idea. Certainly there are problems, but the entire primary/caucus system is full of problems - the biggest problem is finding a better way.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  94. Anthony Cantiello

    This really is a non-issue. It just comes down to the particular geography of the state caucusing.

    In Iowa, constituents caucused in farm houses. The hosts offered their friends and neighbors farm-grown food and drink like apple pie and hot cocoa. In Nevada, the people will caucus in casinos. The hosts there will offer their guests Jack and cokes and filet mignon. It just comes with the territory!

    Personally, Jack, caucusing in Nevada sounds like a lot more fun. Just think of the the afterparties!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  95. Theo Jass

    I don't see any problem with holding caucuses in a casino. During the Iowa caucuses, I talked with people who remembered when caucuses were held in the back of a neighbor's pickup truck. If holding a caucus in a casino gives more people the opportunity to participate, then it should be allowed.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  96. John Asmussen

    The only thing I find wrong with holding caucuses in casinos is that a caucus is not a secret ballot and involves physically standing in a particular candidates corner to be counted. The Culinary Union has endorsed Obama. I have a problem with the pressures that will be on the voters with not only their supervisors watching but their Union bosses scrutinizing their vote as well. A caucus in inherently anathema to the principle of a free and secret ballot.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  97. T. Jackson

    How can anyone be so blind not to see a connection between these casino voting places and favouritism? Voting in Canada has always been by local region. The decision by the judge has provided voters sympathetic to the Obama race to NOT vote in their local areas. What does "working" have to with things? Is there not a method of voting before the caucus at more convenient times? I wonder how the judge is going to vote.

    T. Jackson
    Orillia, Ontario

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  98. Allen

    The Teachers union in Nevada comes out of this the worst. Not only are they being used by the Clintons, but they seem to be out smarted by cooks and dishwashers.
    Littlestown, PA

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  99. Cesar

    Absolutely not! if anything, it should make people want to participate even more, more so if they disagree with caucuses in casinos. im dissapointed that Reno, Laughlin, and Lake Tahoe have not followed Las Vegas' action.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  100. Mark, Houston

    How can anyone have a problem with holding the caucuses in casinos? They are large, very secure venues which operate within the limits of the law. There is so much more security and scrutiny in and of casinos than pretty much anywhere but military bases. Its a no-brainer.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  101. Melanie

    Honestly, I really don't care. You could vote in the middle of a football field, for all I care.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  102. Ralph

    Jack, with all these candidates fighting for the nomination, what could be more of a crap shoot? Perhaps we should all be voting in casinos.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  103. Andrea

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Nevada holding caucuses in casinos. I support Clinton but saying it's "unfair" isn't the right way to go about it. She needs to show that even if it does favor another campaign that she's strong enough and positive enough to still come out on top. Lesson of the day – not everything is fair, get over it.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  104. Chris

    Holding Caucuses in a casino seems of little importance. The fact remains; it's a place where people can gather to voice their opinions as to whom they want to lead our country. To deny a caucus to be held in a particular location does detriment to those in the area who might otherwise not be able to travel to a caucus location farther away. The only opposition I would have to holding the caucuses in casinos would be if those between the ages of 18 and 20 would still not be allowed entry.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  105. Joe Weitzell

    Why should the Nevada caucuses be any less of a crap shoot than the campaigns – or the general election itself for that matter?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  106. Don Forlenza

    Yes, it is a campaign dirty trick for Barack Obama to use the casinos to make it look like he is getting more votes

    January 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  107. Debbie

    Why should casino workers receive special treatment? Makes better sense to hold caucuses in retirement homes. Big business media - and others - have shown blatant bias towards B. Obama during the campaign. Guess we will find out the real reason after the elections.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  108. Rod Taylor

    Sure it's fair as long as ignoring all the other trade unions is considered to be OK. I believe the least they could have done is set up a betting book on it saying something like, "OK, we're only gonna caucus in areas that back Obama. Everybody else can stay the hell home and we're giving even odds that he takes it! Put your money up Jack, and throw in a couple of bucks for your buddy Wuff too!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  109. Taylor

    Absolutely, there IS a problem with that. There is nothing fair about certain people who may be endorsing Obama, to have an easier chance to vote for him than other working people, especially when their votes can count up to five times more! Regardless of whether turnout at the caucus site was low, it is a dirty and unfair way to go. Is this not the dirty Washington politics Obama's camp always denounces. Seems the Obama campaign has thrown away all their old beliefs and their credibility as well.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  110. Patricia


    I spent my career in the hospitality industry, going to vote is really tough.
    The idea was great, especially in a town like Vegas. The mistake was the union publicly supporting Obama...that smacks of controlling the vote ..

    thanks & have a great weekend (and to Wolf too)


    January 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  111. Dave Jendon

    The question I have to ask is this: If the Clintons had gotten the endorsment of the Culinary Union, would they still have thought the system was unfair?

    Please note my use of the plural in regard to the Clinton campaign.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm |

    I work on the Las Vegas Strip along with 10s of tousands of others. I am in sales and Saturday is a very important day for me to be working. Having the open caucus at casinos gives me a much better oppurtunity to participate in the process. I think the law suit is obstructional politics and unfortunate however I am happy the court is sensitive to our rights and is able to protect them as in this case.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  113. wilson

    I'm not even a democrat, but I think it is totally unfair. It really ticks me off, because over the years, I personally have had to make sacrifices along with my employers to make it to the polls to vote. People all over the country work and have to find a way to get their vote out. What makes these people so special? Whatever happened to being fair?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  114. howie metzner

    casinos, churches, banks, daycare center.... anywhere that fits the shysters needs.
    what happened to the good old days when we voted in firehouses or school gyms?
    oh i see, no outside infulance there... well that clearly won't do now will it?
    if they can tilt it and WE let them, they will.
    wake up america

    January 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  115. Ann from Florida

    With a raised eyebrow, a smile on my face: I think the whole election is a game of Russian roulette, so why not?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  116. Sherry

    Jack –

    I don't see anything wrong with Nevada holding caucuses in casinos. However, there is something definitely wrong with having primaries where voting machines without paper trails make you feel like you are at a slot machine in a casino where you take your chance and have no record of what came up?

    Atlanta, GA

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  117. Herb Brambley

    No. I don't see anything wrong with holding holding caucuses in casinos. Maybe next year we can vote down at the local bar. That would be real progress.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  118. Daniel Spicer

    Unless the teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton after the judge in the case made the ruling I think you are skewing the question. Last I heard the teachers brought the suit but had not endorsed Hillary Clinton. Look in the broadcasts where a reporter is arguing with President Clinton. Its pretty obvious that your Clinton bias or love for Obama is showing. However, getting to the question I agree with President Clinton that one persons vote should rank the same as any other persons vote. Why should
    an individual working at a casino be able to vote in an area which is not their official
    voting site but a teacher holding a site open for voters be unable to vote because it
    is not his/her site. The Democrats should never have agreed to rules that favored one
    individual over another in the first place and the judge should never have ruled that it is fair to add more weight to one group of voters over anothers but again your bias is obvious.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  119. Roger

    Sure I do (think it's a bad idea). Unless they want to caucus in coal mines, mills, sweat shops, and even sports events, it seems that a place of employment is just that – a place to work. All the voting in my state is done in firehouses and closed schools, no matter what the day of the week.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  120. Jeff

    What is the difference between holding the election at a casino and holding an election at a school? In my precinct I have to vote at a school! For the Presidential Election state employees get the day off which, includes teachers. This is clearly another attack by the Clintons who fear Obama's growing appeal. I applaud the decision to allow the casino to host some elections and agree with Obama that to do otherwise would disenfranchise a group of people who do not have the luxury of taking a day off from work in order to take part the in most basic of democratic practices.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  121. Dan

    Jack, since they don't have a better system to vote I say let them have their cacuses in the casinoes as workers can't just leave work to attend one. Who knows those that are against this can only hope "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas". Also keep up the good work Jack. Your's truly a Senior Liberal-Consertive. Dan E.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  122. Jeff K.

    No, honestly I don't see a problem with it. Reason being that the number of employees at most of the casinos equals the population of many small towns in Iowa... and they have several caucus locations. Now the fact that the number of delegates is out of balance is bad. Should be the same as downtown, the suburbs, Reno, Henderson, or any other caucusing location..

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  123. Christopher Castro

    I believe if it allows more registered voters to have a say in one of the most important issues now, choosing our commander and chief, then I'm all for it. I'm glad these workers will have an opportunity to vote, and believe the decision by the courts was the correct one.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  124. TaosBill

    I am in favor of anything that will get people to vote. Sick and tired of the religious and political extremes electing people who are supposed to represent us. How about “If you draw a government check of any kind” and you don’t vote- NO CHECK or a national by state lottery of a couple million dollars drawn for voters poll tickets.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  125. Rich , McKinney Texas

    I have no problem with it. In Iowa they caucused at Good old Uncle Jebs house in the middle of a plowed corn field. In New Hampshire it was a bit more formal, at Joes Crab shack. What's a better fitting place when in Nevada then a Casino. I mean it is really just a crap shoot anyway right?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  126. Carol


    I only have one word "duh."

    State College, PA

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  127. Julie

    RE: Casino Votes

    Hurray for the casino workers, is what I say. Those folks work in a 24/7 industry
    serving the public, most in crappy jobs. Anyone who has ever been to Vegas knows it's a transportation nightmare-to leave a job on the strip, go back to your neighborhood to caucus, then go back to work? No way that is gonna happen.
    Whereas the teachers do NOT work all day, although many or most do work on
    Saturdays in Vegas (at least they used to have year-round schools). The bottom line is that Hillary would be happy if it were the other way around, she's just snippy like that, isn't she? I wish the first woman running was anyone but her.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  128. Jeffery SL

    Jack I frankly do not understand the problem. Nobody was in dissent months ago when it was already agreed on that the caucauses will be held in the casinos. But as soon as Sen. Barak Obama recieved the Culrinary Union's endorsement, it suddenly became a problem and we see a lawsuit. Don't you think it's wise to have the caucauses in the casinos beacause it's usually the most populated place in the whole state especially on a weekend? I truly don't understand the sudden dissent (by a niche group) and i think its an even irresponsible question for you to ask.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  129. Ross

    Very wrong. Example: WHAT if the Boeing Company Union in Seattle decided to support Hillary Clinton and...set up caucuses in several of their plants – watched over by 'the Union leaders'. Maybe 110,000 people voting there, with a little PRESSURE from the bosses perhaps, instead of in their home precincts. Fair? I heard a Nevada citizen interviewed on Fox news (pardon me) the night of the debates there say ..he had already heard about some 'bullying' going on, on who to vote for. I understand that more than half of the culinary workers are Latino. I hope they won't let themselves be intimidated and stand up for who they 'each' want to vote for. I don't believe that Obama or Clinton would want it any other way.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  130. Jim Jensen

    I think caucuses being held in casinos is very unfair. Anywhere else, caucuses are held in specific neighborhoods or at least within a certain district where the people caucusing actually reside. By allowing a caucus to be held where a strong union calls the vote it will skew the votes and result in an unfair number of delegates, at the national convention, with votes pledged for a candidate who probably would not have gotten that many votes or delegates otherwise. That only benefits a specific group of people and does not fairly benefit the vote of all the people. Does Obama want to win votes unfairly just so he can win the state or does he really want to be elected honestly and fairly and represent all the people if he is nominated to run for President?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  131. Garry

    The way that caucases are conducted! Yea Right To expect employees to raise their hands or go to a corner supporting a specific candigate, with their union bosses right there, who have already pleadged their support for O'bama. They will do what they think will please their leaders. Oh yeah did you hear most of the employees at these cites are new citizens. They are being exploited.

    Just a middle class citizen

    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  132. liam

    The whole idea here was to involve people into caucusing that would otherwise not have the opportunity. The majority of these people work on Saturdays while everybody else takes it easy.
    What is really preposterous is Bill Clinton's assertion that the votes count more for these workers.
    How does he explain that his super delegate vote could transpose as many as 5000 votes!!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  133. Adam

    The at large caucuses were designed to help alleviate the needs of a concentrated group of people that would otherwise be unable to caucus simply because of weekend work restrictions.

    I doubt you would be asking if it was right to hold an at large caucuses in or near an auto plant if we were caucusing in Michigan, this weekend.

    The fact that these caucuses are held at a hotel / casino is simply of by-product of where the affected people are, and the fact that the facilities best suited for large gatherings happen to be the hotel and convention facilities.


    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  134. Thomas of Las Vegas

    If this was a basic primary election, having "voting" zones within the casinos would not be a bad idea since that will allow the workers the opportunity to cast their vote in this important decision. As a voter planning to caucus tomorrow in a regular precinct, I see this allowance of nine "special precincts" as a "loading", if you will, of votes for one candidate since the dominant union within those casinos is actively campaigning for Obama. With the "pressure" being exerted within the casinos by leadership and co-members of the union, what do you think is the possibility of an actual caucus occurring in those ballrooms? Any attendee with a preference for Edwards or Clinton would quickly be shunted. Compare this to the regular precincts where there might actually be some "discussion and persuasion" as is the intent of the caucus format. Our precinct caucus has the itent of being conducted fairly with opportunities for discourse. This disparity between the two types of caucus operations could impact the final tally that CNN will report Saturday night. It seems the decision to have the nine special precincts was made quietly and I suspect certain party officials and politicians agreed to this format to not lose endorsement by that large Culinary union.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  135. Comer Parks

    I see nothing wrong with holding a caucus in a casino. It is after all, just a building. What's the big deal?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  136. Matt

    It is not a bad idea if similar access is permitted for all the potential voters in Nevada and not just a select few. Maybe because I am not from Nevada, it seems a little inconsistent with the importance of selecting a nominee for the president of the United States if it is held in gambling casinos. In this case, one can hope that what happens in Las Vegas really stays in Las Vegas and doesn't spread to the rest of the nation.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  137. Kumar

    Most of us who vote have to go to a polling station on a workday and indeed take the time to do it.
    If the ruling allows voting to be held in casinoes, then it should be allowed in all places of work on the day they are open for work and business. It should also occur in churches, temples and such on the days of worship. This way it makes it convenient for all the people who want to vote.
    Doesn't look like it was a well thought out ruling.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  138. Jan from Wood Dale, IL

    Holding Caucuses in casinos is fine as long as all the same rules apply throughout the state:
    Must have a valid voters registration ID, not just an employee ID
    Require 50 votes for one person for one delegate vote
    No special time off with pay for culinary union workers
    No union bosses/leaders acting as casino precinct captains since this is not a secret ballot

    January 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  139. Forrest Black


    My daughter is a teacher in Vegas. She tells me they are caucusing in the schools tomorrow. If they can participate in the schools, then I don't see any negatives to voting in the Casinos. More participation in the process can only make us a stronger country.

    Sincerely, Forrest Black
    Libby, Montana

    January 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  140. Jonathan in Reno, Nevada

    The only issue that troubles me with Nevada holding the caucuses in Casinos is that the locations are business establishments. These caucuses could be dubbed the "Casino Caucuses." I hope it does not come down to work/economy being the most important issue with these caucus participants. If it does then you have to wonder what influence the workplace has on the local participation. Let us hope they had clear minds when choosing their candidate.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  141. patti

    Jack, it's about fair play, not stackiung the deck. My sister is a janitor at one of the schools that's a polling site, and she can't participate because it"s not her own polling place. The teacher union that represents her went to court for her and others like her. Why focus attention on the fact that it's the Strip? why not ask how come the judge didn't say EVERY worker in Nevada ciuld vote wherever he or she is working during that time? Then it would be a fair deal. Then again, my sister isn't a member of a fashionable minority group. And she's not in glamorous Las Vegas.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  142. John Grambo

    Very bad idea. Union intimidation of works in an open to view caucus.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  143. Mary

    The Judge who sided with the Culinary workers union is apparently a supporter of Barack Obama. YES, it does give him an unfair advantage by holding the caucuses in the casinos since that Culinary Workers Union is supporting Obama. The Teachers Union had it right, the caucuses should be held on neutral ground. If the Casino Workers Union includes maids, dishwashers and bellhops, they might be illegal immigrants, and that could backfire on Obama.
    Mary from Philly

    January 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  144. Irene from Washington DC

    No. Participation in the democratic process in the U.S., even in the presidential general election, is lower than that of at least 35 other countries. If we are to be a beacon of liberty, and a primary marketer of participatory democracy throughout the world, we need to do whatever possible to ensure maximum possible participation in our own country. For the Clintons and their supporters to oppose caucuses in the working location of diverse Americans is disingenuous at best. Where were they when the state Democratic party devised and promulgated this policy early last year?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm |
  145. Ernesto

    I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM....................

    January 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  146. Tom Bulger

    As long as the casinos are Wabanaki, I have no problem. WE need the trade, and if it weren't for us you might not have won the revolutionary war and be voting at all..

    January 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
  147. Chems

    No, No and No. If there was a problem then the issue should have been brought up before the culineray workers' endorsement.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  148. CJ ZHAO

    depending on the voter id system in navada, there is a possibility that all the casino gamblers might have a hand in the caucuses. but it is fine though. nothing will surpass the infamous florida 2000.

    cj jax florida

    January 18, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  149. Will, Iowa City

    I don't see any reason why the caucuses could not be held in casinos, despite how some people may view the gaming industry. Here in Iowa, we hold our caucuses in all types of wacky locations which are integral to our state. The gaming industry is an extremely important part of the Nevada state economy, as are its workers. Holding the caucuses in casinos would allow for workers to caucus with ease, and therefore increase voter turnout in Nev! What is so wrong with that? Do you think they will all show up and make their choice of candidate via a slot machine? Give me a break!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
  150. Liza Abraham

    I question the wisdom of having at-work caucuses only because union endorsements are also involved. What happens to a worker who supports a candidate beside the one endorsed by the union? He or she arrives at the caucus, surrounded by-workers and unionmates, to engage in a process of public support. Maybe workers will feel preasurred to conform to the choice of the union leadership - after all, it's not a secret ballot. Maybe workers will fear disdain or retaliation if they select Edwards or Clinton instead of Obama.

    Or perhaps they'll be compelled to participate in their neighborhood caucuses instead, so as to make their choice in an unfettered way. Which defeats the purposes of at-work caucusing to begin with.

    Surrounded by your neighbors instead of your unionmates means there's no intimidation to go with the union choice.

    One other thing I don't understand: if the neighborhood caucuses are at 11 am and the casino caucuses at 2 pm, what prevents a worker from caucusing once in their neighborhood and again at work?

    Overall, I don't think it's an improvement in the system, just way to increase the political clout of union leaders, whose selection of Obama over Edwards in the first place is puzzling.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  151. Jen

    I think the best solution would be to do away with caucuses and let everyone vote normally.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  152. Kay

    It depends on how its done. If the Union Steward and Bosses are going to be present to watch which way the people are voting, it taints the entire process since the union has taken it upon themselves to make a recommendation. Since they can not close down the casinos and they will have to go to the caucus in shifts. They should write who they want on a piece of paper and put it in a ballot box so they can have some privacy.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  153. Dave

    Jack, this sounds like the perfect venue in which to hold caucuses. After all, the Democratic nominee will win the nomination in a crap shoot anyway, then lose it all in the General Election. The Democrats all have visions of a utopia just as many invision Las Vegas to be. Can Democrats in Nevada cross party lines and vote for Ron Paul? At least Paul has enough guts to gamble his political career on telling the truth about the true situation that America is currently facing, and present the remedies. I have yet to hear any other candidate present a plan of action...other than a roll of the dice.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  154. Sue

    No, Jack, I see nothing wrong with it. And neither did the Clintons when it was approved last year. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game, even if they do benefit an opponent, that's NOT the American way.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
  155. barbara miller

    It's OK, Jack. It was fine for Billary when they thought she was getting the endorsement. It only became unfair when the Culinary Workers endorsed Senator Obama. Time for Hillary to bring home the dog in. He's getting obnoxious!!!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  156. Dawn

    If the teachers union was so worried about their own members not being able to caucus on a Saturday, why didn't they petition the party to make it easier for them to vote? Or why didn't they try and get more at-large caucuses around the state? Tomorrow is going to be an extremely busy day on the casinos - a Saturday on a long holiday weekend, and thousands of folks will have to work washing dishes, cleaning rooms, pouring drinks. If having caucus sites near their workplace allows some of these workers to take a break from work and participate (many will still be blocked from participation because the casinos aren't just going to shut down for two hours), I can't for the life of me see why anyone would be against it. This lawsuit sure smacks of voter suppression.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  157. Ed Liggins


    I don't understand the issue raised about having caucuses at casinos. After all, where on earth can you find a better forum for a crapshoot???

    January 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  158. Will K

    How can anything that lets more people legally vote be a bad thing?

    January 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  159. Stephen Baker

    It seems to me that the real issue here is why did the Clinton campaign wait until after the Culinary Union voted to support Barack Obama to complain about holding caucuses in the casinos. The Clinton campaign apparatus was clearly aware of the situation months ago, and they were in total support of the concept when they assumed that Hillary would gain the support of the Culinary Union. Surprise, surprise! In simple terms, the Judge ruled that the Clinton campaign can't have their cake and eat it too. Former President Clinton's complaining about a process he supported until recently makes him look less presidential every day, and he is pulling Hillary down with him. I am no longer on the fence. I'm going to vote for honesty and a breath of fresh air–Barack Obama.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  160. carl gutierrez (Guam)

    This caucus is about the voters and not the candidates. The decision to select the various venues was made last year in March, long before Obama decided to seek the Presidency. The decision by the courts favors the electorate and not the candidate.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  161. Carole

    The important thing to me is that as many people who choose to have their voice heard have that opportunity to do so, regradless of the venue.

    What is more important than this question is the shenanigans and misinformation from the GOP about caucus locations that would better be addressed. This poses a far greater distortion to the voting process than the question which you ask here.

    Thank you,
    Carole Marcum

    January 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
  162. Sue/New York

    Once Again! Corporate America is gambing with the future of Americans! Since when do we vote in casinos??? And why is a Saturday any different then any other day of the week, seems to be because Sen.Obama is being backed by them.Do I hear Corporate favortism?????? Thought he was a man against that.!!!!!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:39 pm |
  163. rick

    I do not have a problem with workers voting at their place of employment, but I do not understand why their votes count 5x times more than the other votes. Also are not most hotel workers illegal immigrants. Do I see voter fraud going on in Las Vegas!

    January 18, 2008 at 5:39 pm |
  164. Linda

    Yes Jack, I see plenty wrong with it. It calls to mind the several years I worked as a department Mamager in Nevada casinos. When we were called in and told if we liked our jobs we would donate to United Way and also see that our departments employees did the same. I was not at all surprised at the Judges dicision. Nevada is run by the casino's. Will the voting be fair in the casinos? NO! it will be whatever the casinos want if they want to keep thier jobs. Believe me, I have been there.
    Welcome to Bushes America of Coroperate Criminals! YAHHHHH -– WHOOOOOOOO

    January 18, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
  165. Felipe

    I'm more worried about how all the casino workers will be voting at caucuses attended by - maybe run by - their own bosses, who are wedded to the union that endorsed a particular one of the candidates. Talk about putting a thumb on the scale! This is like old-time ward heelers putting lipstick on the underside of the voting levers. I had to learn about this for citizenship, and I don't like it now either.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:48 pm |
  166. Tom in NB

    Doesn't really matter. Casinos seem appropriate. Obama is a long shot anyway.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
  167. Susan Norris

    Unions have been known to be extremely oppressive towards anyone who doesn't tow the line. Even if a member of the union strongly supported Clinton and desperately wanted a chance to vote for the first female President, they would dare not cross the Union line. They know they could easily lose their job or worse. Caucuses are not "secret" votes and therefore, they should not be held in a place where the Union Boss can and will intimidate anyone who dares disagree with the good-ole-boys running the show.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:53 pm |
  168. Jen

    I think this gives workers who would normally not be able to participate to have easy access. This gives people who are generally lower income who work in our service industry the opportunity to vote in our election. It's wrong that some canidates appose this because their demographic may not find this beneficial.

    January 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
  169. seti

    hey if we can vote in a casino we might as well take a real gamble and let us all vote at our comfort of our own home.

    January 18, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  170. Roger

    Well Jack, how I see it's a good idea... however I think they should first test the person voting to make sure he or she isn't under the influence of alcohol etc. before they vote... We wouldn't want anyone to make a spectacle of themselves now would we...

    January 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
  171. Joel New Brighton MN

    Are you kidding. Like we are not rolling the dice for a new president. Momma needs a new pair a shoes and a strong economy.

    January 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  172. Dolores Ward

    IF this was a primary and not a caucus I would say go ahead and make it easy for the workers to vote. But since it is a caucus and the union is backing obama we all know that the employees are going to vote for the boss' candidate for fear of losing their jobs. Remember it is not a secret ballot. You vote publicly and your boss sees who you vote for. That is what is unfair. An employee that doesn't want to vote for the person his boss is for will be afraid to voice his opinion in a public forum. I would like to know how man others have thought of this.

    January 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  173. Faye

    There's nothing wrong with holding a caucus in a casino if there's nothing wrong with holding the general election in a church. I think the casino is a much more appropriate place, to begin with.

    January 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  174. Cheryl

    The proplem is not that there will be voting in 9 casinos, the complaint is that it is only in 9 casinos that are all located on the strip, represented by one union and that each vote carries far more weight than votes given anywhere else in Nevada. (5-1)
    If the idea is to help casino workers vote, how does this really help them? Think about it. There are literally hundreds of casionos that are not on the strip in an around Las Vegas and what about Casinos in Primm, Reno, Laughlin and other areas? This does nothing to help their workers. THAT IS THE COMPLAINT. It seems so suspicious that only the casinos represented by this union have been given the caucuses.

    I believe the Clintons voiced their opinions because of this. The teacher's union has repeatedly said that Clintons are not involved with the opposition to this and they have not endorsed Clinton. I am quite sure Obama will get his share of their votes as well.

    This who process just smacks of Bushism where elections are being controlled and not equally fair to ALL voters. It reminds me of Michigan, where they lost their delegates because they moved up the date of the election without DNC permission, surprisingly Nevada also moved up theres. The name of the game seems to be to control the vote.

    Caucuses and the electoral college are antiquated, obsolete procedures that do not fairly represent the voice of voters. They are open to too much corruption and intimidation. The idea that someone has to go into a room where there are union reps and openly voice their choice of candidates is a little intimidating to me – especially when the majority of those votes are uneducated or little education and their job could depend on their vote. This type of election should be done away with. This is the 21st century – you know, the age of computers. Primaries and generals should be decided by POPULAR vote – with a paper trail required on all voting. The elections for congress and the president should be one voter – one vote and in private. Every citizen should have ample opportunity to have a private say in his or her choice for their party candidate and the general.

    January 19, 2008 at 9:00 am |
  175. mike rivera

    Are they checking for U.S. citizenship at the casino polls?

    January 19, 2008 at 11:02 am |
  176. Kathy

    Why do the casino workers get preferential treatment? Nothing like having your Union leader watching that you vote for the endorsed candidate. They should do away with them entirely, what happened to our right to vote privately?

    January 19, 2008 at 11:25 am |
  177. Brendan

    Schools serve as election stations all the time. Does that unfairly benefit candidates endorsed by teachers' unions? The Clinton campaign complaints aren't legitimate. The campaign wants to disenfranchise voters who aren't in Hillary's camp.

    January 19, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  178. Art Joyce

    I'm watching the Nevada Caucus on CNN, where they keep asking for a Spanish Interpreter, and Wolf Blitzer keeps saying there are several "Spanish Speakers" there.

    Do they even CHECK to see if these people, who are deciding whom will be the president of our country for the next 4 years are even citizens?

    I do not understand how anyone could possibly live in the United States for the 5 years required to become a citizen, and not Learn english.

    I ESPECIALLY find it hard to belive that there could be "Several" of them in a crowd of only 150 people.

    January 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  179. Andria Fields

    Well Jack,
    I have sat back long enough and let the traveling Bill and Hil, show go any further. As a Baby Boomer, and a woman of color, (African American) I want someone to tell this calculating duo of ‘Grifters’ that they are lower than a snake’s belly. I was behind Bill when he was in office. Never mind that he had some ‘under the table’ influences. But, now I see what the Republicans see. And, trust me…it ain’t pretty. Slick Willie is up to his old tricks.
    Who is actually running for president? Bill or Hil? Either way, they’re a part of the same old problem. If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you keep getting what you’ve always gotten. After seeing him attack a reporter with the ‘wicked finger’, and Barack Obama, is nothing sacred?
    I have voted in every election since I was able to. I wouldn’t vote for Hilary Clinton if she were the only name on the ballot. Someone should tell her that a lot of people feel that way. She suddenly has selective memory.
    She and her grifter husband have almost, almost succeeded in splitting the African American Community down the middle. Does she not realize that some of her life long friendships are forever changed? Slicker than oil on skis, these two will stoop to great lengths to keep their twenty year plan in place. I have lost respect for both of them and I detest the very sight of them. Maybe you can tell them that for me.

    Miss A. from Raleigh, North Carolina

    January 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm |