2016 Presidential Election: The Importance of Winning Nevada

Posted on: February 17, 2015, 01:59h.

Last updated on: February 17, 2015, 01:41h.

Casino.org Staff Writer Read More

Expertise: Commercial Gaming.

2016 presidential election Nevada — To win the 2016 presidential election, candidates will need to focus on capturing the swing state of Nevada. (Image: csmonitor.com)

The 2016 presidential election is surrounded by plenty of unknowns, but one safe bet is the importance of winning the swing state of Nevada.

Following Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada stands to be the third state to hold its Republican and Democratic primaries, meaning candidates will need to place a greater emphasis on appealing to residents through campaigning and fine-tuning their policies to adhere to what Nevadans value.

While states have moved up and leapfrogged others in the past, primary voting will most likely begin with the Iowa caucuses on February 1st, 2016, followed by New Hampshire on February 9th and Nevada on February 20th.

Nevada is where more Americans come to test their luck than any other, but in 2016, it could also be where politicians vying for the White House see their fate ultimately determined.

Where the Candidates Stand

Since the presidential election is still 21 months away, many names have been tossed around as probable candidates, but none have been officially confirmed. Here’s where the notable favorites stand in regards to gambling online, a key issue to both Casino.org readers and voters in Nevada.

The Democratic Picture

With Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) repeatedly saying she won’t run and VP Joe Biden unlikely to challenge, former Secretary of State, New York Senator, and First Lady Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite. Her political history is a bit mixed concerning online gambling. She voted for the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the legislation that would ultimately lead to online poker’s Black Friday. However, Clinton also supported a study in 2008 to investigate how online gambling could be regulated in the US.

So how would a second Clinton administration look? It’s tough to tell, but most feel Clinton would oppose measures to block Internet gaming such as the Restoration of America’s Wire Act that was presented before Congress in 2014. Little is known in regards to where she would stand on determining whether online gambling should be mandated at the federal or state level, a question Hillary will likely need to answer as she campaigns through Nevada.

GOP More Complicated

Following Mitt Romney’s departure, no clear frontrunner exists for the Republican ticket. Here are the contenders ranked in order of their current Real Clear Politics polling position.

Jeb Bush: The former Florida governor is an outspoken opponent to online gambling and the expansion of land-based casinos. However, his brother George W. carried Nevada in the 2004 election, and is currently the favorite in Vegas for the nomination.

Chris Christie: The NJ governor is pro-Internet gambling, leading his commonwealth to becoming just the third state to legalize online poker and casino games. With his state’s own gaming economy, Christie should easily connect with Nevadans.

Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor and Fox News host is a vocal critic of iGaming. “Online gambling websites are preying on every kid with a smartphone or a tablet,” Huckabee said last November.

Hillary Clinton appears to be about as much of a sure thing as one can be in politics. Assuming she takes the Democratic nomination, it will be the Republican primary that draws the most interest come campaign season.

Purple State

Nevada has historically been a purple state, which is why its primaries are held so early. Both the GOP and Dems want a fair and balanced, unbiased base of constituents to determine which candidate is best suited to win over Americans of all political stances. With a Republican governor and Democratic majority state legislature, Nevadans are known for putting politics aside.

Since 1980, Nevada has voted for the overall winning presidential candidate, a streak of nine consecutive elections. Although the state has only six Electoral College electors, they will be some of the most sought-after half-dozen votes in 2016.

Last Comment ( 1 )

Write a comment

Write a comment Cancel reply

otto February 18, 2015

Not so fast, By 2106, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes. Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. NationalPopularVote.com