Why the media and candidates have been ignoring the Nevada primary?

Question

It appears more media and candidates are paying MORE attention to the South Carolina primary of Jan 26 than the EARLIER Nevada primary of Jan 19. Nevada has more delegates than New Hampshire.

OK. Why they ignore the Nevada CAUCUSES?

It also appears that the poll standings of democrat candidates are different from other early states, e.g., Hillary is ahead by a big margin there while she is struggling in other states?

Answer 1

It could be that (a) it is not upfront like iowa or new hampshire, the winning of which may affect the later states; (b) the candidates have not spent much time there; (c) Nevada is not unique (most blacks like south carolina, or most farmers like Iowa).

Answer 2

OK, aside from people that can't answer the question without the whole caucus/primary thing coming up, here's my best shot: Iowa and New Hampshire are usually pretty good testing grounds. South Carolina can help show the southern voting pattern. As for Nevada? Well, it just has never quite had the same kind of effect. No doubt, the candidates will pay attention, but since the media can't make a lot of assumptions based on it, they don't cover it as much. Since there's little media, there's little of the candidates.

Answer 3

I have signed up to participate in the Nevada caucuses on January 19th. Nevada usually doesn't have a primary. They used to have one in September of each even-numbered election year. I don't know why they might be ignoring us. When you find out, let us all know, will you?

Answer 4

It's because Nevada does not have a primary election. They have a CAUCUS, which is a totally different thing.

Answer 5

They have a caucus not a primary election.