Nevada primaries and implications of firearms ownership

[PolarFBear]

Hello moderator. This inquiry tends 99% to the political: But, I am only seeking clarification and some "Civics" education. No "flames" please. A Democrat, as the next POTUS, is viewed as a negative towards firearms ownership as we know it. Can I get some clarification from Nevada (and Iowa) Forum members on those recent caucuses. Ms. Client "won" Nevada with less than 600 votes even though the percentage calculation made it seem FAR greater. A little over 10,000 Nevadans voted in total. In the Republican caucus over 34,000 voted for Mr. Trump, plus the second and third place finishers in the Republican drew more votes than the entire Democrat electorate. Am I missing something in the review of the Democratic results? I am only familiar with the privilege of a "secret ballot" in any election I have participated in. These "cauci" are a mystery to this easterner.

 

[Doyle]

You have to remember that in most states, primary elections and caucus polls are not for the general public. They are "private" events where only the party members get to participate. Even then, they generally attract only the most active members of the party - hence the very low numbers.

 

[FITASC]

If you remember the shenanigans that went on in 2008 with her, you can just not take anything there to the bank. Especially now that there is a possibility that the governor, a R, might be nominated for SCOTUS

 

[44 AMP]

Until the national conventions are over, determining who the actual presidential candidate will be is all smoke and mirrors, a great noise, signifying very little of real importance.

Its a great spectator sport, for some, and keeps the talking heads and voices busy, but the only election that actually matters is the one in November.

Once it boils down to two, or possibly three candidates, THEN its time to get serious.