THE CAUCUS FACTOR
By Dr. Lynette Long on July 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM in Barack Obama, DNC, Democratic Nomination, Disenfranchisement, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Voter Enfranchisement, Washington state
On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step. After the polls closed at 7 pm, primary voters could participate in a caucus. Sixty-five percent of the pledged delegates were awarded based on the primary results and the other 35% based on the caucus results.
According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary – 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined. In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported. Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes. Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct. Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.
Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges. During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot. To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate. The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.
Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift. Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.
This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary. The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions. What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results? Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states? What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results?
No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee — but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.
The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters. Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours. Senator Clinton’s core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses. Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier. Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus. And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration. Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for. At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters.
Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses. Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets. How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.
Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization. Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?
On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates. Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates. Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest. Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes). How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference? The caucus factor is at work again. Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?
Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively. Fourteen states had caucuses — Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses. The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters. In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race.
The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses. The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points. The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points. This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.
The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor. The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results. Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin. Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound. Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points. If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.
Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries. In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded. In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast. In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates. A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary. With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.
The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states. The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results.
Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries.
Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states. The Democrats have allowed the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.
This will result in certain disaster in the fall.
– Lynette Long
BIO: Dr. Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist practicing in Bethesda, Maryland. She is the author of twenty books including fourteen math books. Dr. Long has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and was the host of One on One with Dr. Lynette Long. She recently published Op-Ed’s in both USA Today and the Baltimore Sun about the current election cycle. Her blog is LynetteLong.com.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
O2 began taking pre-orders for Apple’s new iPhone 3G through its website early Monday but was forced halt the service just hours later as UK consumers flooded the carrier’s servers and quickly consumed initial supplies.
barky is using Steves “Reality Distortion Field” for evil.
Could someone explain why in the Texas caucus only 41% of the vote was counted.
the count stopped at 41% because the turn out during that day greatly exceeded expectations and the capacity to count the votes properly. most of the caucus locations cannot accomodate the thousands who show up to caucus. and therefore, the election officials gave up counting the votes for the highly populated caucuses.
the caucus system cannot work for states with a large population. the party didn’t provide the infrastructure to deal with the turn out. as a result, people were disenfranchised by the party.
the turnout was greater too because hillary took steps to organize her supporters to caucus in Texas after realizing what the obama campaign were up to with caucus states.
when hillary’s campaign successfully organized her supporters, that’s when the caucus fraud started to be exposed because the process was no longer dominated by obama campaign.
The reality is that Hillary campaign did not care about the Caucus results, she did not have any plans past Super Tuesday. Her Campaign Manager even thought the battles up to Super Tuesday were winner take all. Rather than pay them the millions they billed they should be refunding what they have already been paid. The Hillary campaign underestimated the Caucus States. Obama did not. She lost.
she did not lose… they both do not have the total delegates necessary to win the nomination. the superdelegates have not cast their vote yet, and until then, there is no nominee… contrary to what the you have been brainwashed to believe.
i agree that hillary’s campaign had underestimated the caucuses. but after regrouping and firing the the former campaign manager ms. de solis (who now is a apart of the obama campaign) they have made significant victories in all the later states all the way to the end. despite being heavily outspent 2-1 or 3-1 she reclaimed the popular vote across the MAJORITY of demographic types. the primary was a tie by any objective assessment of the results.
only those who choose to short cut the democratic process claim that she’s lost. she suspended her campaign for party unity despite having the rules bent unfavorably against her. obama supporters should get their head out of the gutter and be thankful for her grace, and not spiteful.
Then why was the caucus certified?
it is the DNC you are talking about…
ask them why?
the DNC/RBC leaders have been in the tank for obama…
I have but the states certify elections not the dnc or rnc.
certified only the 41% that were counted ?
Heck of a job Deanie.
Washington state has been the one state overlooked regarding deliberate fraud in the nominating process
Washing ton State has both a primary and a caucus. For reasons I can not understand only the Caucus counts for delegates to the democrat convention.
Here are the results which reflect beyond a doubt that one person one vote doesn’t count in Washington State.
Primary Feb 19th
Obama……51,22%….354112 votes
Hillary… 45.67%….315744
Caucus Feb 9th
Obama……68%……..13209 votes ……Del 68
Hillary….31%………6409…………..Del 27
As you can see the spread in the primay is 6 points but didn’t count.
In the caucus where Chicago style intimidation and bully tactics by Obama Brownshirts the spread is an enormous 37%
When reporting this story on primary night the MSM such as the NY times reported the primary as a caucus but showed the popular vote. This was how they could mask the fact that the primary was so close but the delegate total so out of proportion to the popular vote.
Where I come we call that fraud and deception!
The first Caucus I went to in WA said you had to be there by 9 and it would over between 1 and 2. LOL We didn’t get out of there until about six thirty. After that they ran a little smoother but that first one was a killer.
The Caucus I attended was held in the main dining room at the elementary school. There wasn’t enough room and many people simply left. The organized chanting by Obama supporters plus the booing caused many Clinton supporters to get up and flee the mob.
I heard reports of this kind of chaos and intimidation at many of the locations.
The way they had it set up is that anybody old and infirm couldn’t get in the door. The ones that were there were most uncomfortable.
yeah mine was too. An at the second caucus for some unknown reason half the chairs ended up being transfered to another location a couple days before the caucus even though the organizers asked for at least 1000 chairs on site. There were fewer than 500 chairs available caucus morning. There was a lot of standing around people.
Same story in Hawaii. The place was so crowded, they sent one precinct outdoors into the dead of night to vote. Older folks in attendance supporting Hillary left as it was too dark for them to see anything. I tried to cajole them into staying, but they were very uncomfortable in the setting. The mere mention of BO sent the crowd cheering. They intimidated the older portion of the population, and there were folks in that room that I’ve never seen before nor since. Interesting…
Thanks for the mathematical breakdown Dr. Long.
How about an investigation in to the New York results. No fuss has been made because Hillary lost the overall campaign but does anyone really think Obama did not get one vote from the Bronx? Not one? Yeah right.
You didn’t have a caucus so what’s your point?
A few votes in the Bronx is not going to make a 37% difference in the overall popular vote
Bronx folks are smarter than people give them credit for. They know the emperor has no clothes.
So what you’re saying is
Obama is the
‘Emperor with no clothes”
I agree with you Meileen
there you go believing everything you read and hear again…
The WA State democratic leadership was bought off by Obama — well before the caucus.
The VOTERS of WA chose the Primary and funded the primary — the WA State leadership disregarded the voters wishes and forced us to use the old caucus system which Obama had whored.
In my caucus ALL the leaders/officials were Obamabutts — and the fix was in from the start.
There is no longer a democrat party in WA state — it is the Obamacrat party.
The proof is the huge difference between the caucus results and the primary results. The voters were ignored — the Party leaders chose Obama and the Party leaders do not give a damn what the voters want.
The Democrat party will pay for their arrogance and GREED in November.
new troll talking points: distract. yawn.
Thank you for the continuing good work, Dr. Long.
I still cannot figure how this is legal. Are the Dems just totally nuts?
I’ve always maintained that Caucuses are intimidating to the average American. For instance, I couldn’t see my parents in their early 90’s, who’ve ALWAYS voted, spend time at a caucus. They’re not about to be bullied and they don’t feel it’s anyone else’s business who they vote for.
Caucuses are unAmerican and clearly go against the one citizen / one vote philosophy.
Caucuses should be outlawed. Who wants to spend that much time letting a bunch of zealots try to cram their opinion down your throat? It’s the purest form of intimidation that I’ve ever seen and should be illegal.
The response of Obamabots to your complaints abour caucuses is “your parents just don’t care enough about voting then.” I’ve heard that dozens of times since January.
Of course, you’re right. There’s a reason we don’t use caucuses in elections for Governor, Senator, Congress, State Legislator, President, etc. They are Un-Democratic. They encourage intimidation and they discourage participation. Both of which needed to be done to hand Obama the nomination.
Amen.
One bot said ‘it’s the purest form of democracy’. Huh? I’d say it’s the purest form of intimidation and jack-booted thug tactics.
Obama hasn’t worked for a thing in the primary. It’s ALL been handed to him. I’d venture a guess he’s never worked a day in his life.
I’m really sick of the story about his mother being on food stamps – all the while he was in high-end prep schools. If it’s not an out-and-out lie, then his mother was defrauding the government. I’m sick of his lies in his ads. I’m sick of his pretending that he actually ever did a thing in office. Clearly he’s not done jack SHIT in the US Senate.
He just needs to go away. I want so badly for him to be defeated – and soundly defeated – that I can just taste it. I’m glad I’m no longer a Dem because I’d be embarrassed to be a Dem with him as
THE Chosen Onecandidate. At least as an independent, I can hold my head high and say I didn’t vote for him nor did I support the thugs who put him into office, IF he were to win. (Throwing up in the back of my mouth at that thought)You know, he went to his school on scholarship. So it’s not like he was just wealthy and still taking food stamps. His mother was working and going to school at at the same time and needed help.
You’re really going to criticize him for this??? He was lucky enough to get the chance to go to a good school.
Laura, my Daddy always said – an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure!
BOBO’ banker Grandma sent him to a ritzy Hawaiian prep school at the age of ten. Please stop with the Poor BOBO grew up poor routine. He didn’t.
I criticize him because he’s lying in his tv ads. I’m sick of his lying – all of us are.
He’s a liar and a cheat. He’s not worthy of the POTUS
He was living with his grandparents, when his mother was getting food stamps.
Do you know anything about Obama? everything I see you say is usually wrong and uninformed.
The DNC, DONNA BRAZILE and Coward Dean set all this up so Obama would win, the value of your vote changes within a State with Urban voters having more clout. READ THIS, written by DONNA BRAZILE on NOV. 5, 2004, it’s called “WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS” How To Tap Into The Obama Factor. They thought Obama could tap into the Church Vote, too bad they didn’t check Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. http://www.slate.com/id/2109328
very interesting. so Obama and his crew were planning to take over GWBs faith-initiative program from the get-go. and Brazille was pushing Obama since back in 04 — and she was already to ditch democracy in favor of her boy when the FL Republicans fooled around with the primary date, knowing it would lead to chaos and division for the Dems. It’s also interesting that the Dem FL legislator who co-sponsored the Repub cchange-the-date legislation was an early Obama supporter.
We had caucuses in Minnesotta. There was ZERO intimidation. It was all very cheerful and fun.
I don’t disagree that caucuses exclude some people. But I don’t know where the idea that somehow people get intimidated developed.
Bullshit Alert!!!!!!
It was all cheerful and fun. And there were no ickly elderly people or boring people with jobs or kids at home to take care of, just a bunch of fun-loving kids standing around sharing stories about their latest concert trips an’ stuff. Oh, and then we voted, that part was kind of a drag but like, it was kind of expected too. So we voted for this Obomber guy, ’cause get this, he’s BLACK if that isn’t the coolest I don’t know what is! Also, the other person was some old lady.
Earth to Laura: The “idea” that “somehow people get intimidated” came from hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness accounts. You are an incredibly oblivious person, unless you are kidding.
Don’t forget there were no Milatary people that were actually away fighting for our country.
military
couldn’t have said it better.
USA! USA! USA!
so the whole state got together in one room eh?
And it was cheerful and fun! And then they all had cookies and KOOLAID!!
Keep drinking the kool-aid! We know people were intimidated in the various caucuses and there are pending law suits to that effect.
Where ?
Oh good heavens, Laura West! Do you think a timid 90 year old woman would go into a group of raging pirhana, many who are societies’ marginal members, who are intent upon ‘convincing’ her who she would vote for??? And do you think she’d spend hours with these freaks? Give me a friggin’ break!
She wants to go, vote in private, and go home. Caucuses not only exclude but intimidate. Caucuses will only appeal to the political zealots who are intent upon winning by intimidation
correct. the intimidation factor is impossible to deny, and anyone who does so is being willfully ignorant.
I worked a caucus for the Obama campaign and there was no intimidation. The fact was there were tons of Obama volunteers and not a single volunteer for Hillary. I’m not saying that caucuses aren’t silly but the fact is they exist. And the Obama campaign knew they would be important and acted accordingly, by actually organizing for them. Hillary lost this election partly because she didn’t plan on the contest lasting as long as it did. She and her advisors believed the “she’s inevitable” hype. What’s funny is Hillary’s entire campaign was based on her competence and being ready on day one, yet she wasn’t ready for the drawn out election. The parallels to our situation in Iraq are scary.
Barack Obama: EXPOSED!
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO121
It’s not cool to jack names.
I agree, caucuses are too easy to manipulate. I still have no idea who the punks were at mine. They certainly weren’t military and they obviously weren’t farmers with waxed eyebrows and red Italian leather motorcycle jackets.
“Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence than voters in primaries”
And there lies BO’s strategy and his ability to maximize the benefits of the crazy caucuses–they open the door to allow all kinds of cheating and stealing. Did he abuse the system, they’ll say that it depends on what you call abuse. Regardless, the last statement by Long is correct, this may have won him the nomination but never the general election. The Democratic Party has lost so many of us due to this insanity and its cowardice. We have been voting for 30 years as Democrats, not this time. Clinton or McCain.
Dr. Long
If there were only 2.8 million votes cast and you have published books on mathemathics— How do you explain that almost 3 million people voted for Hillary. Your facts are skewed!
I live in Washington state and I have to agree with this post. In fact I think that most of teh states that held caucuses if investigated would find the same issues. not only is the caucus system not representitive of the actual will of the voters (only a small sub-set) it is absolutley prone to undue influencing and bully tactics.
Obama played it like a game and took advantage but something tells me he still loses. “We the People” tend to look down on bullies and cheats!
http://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/
Obama is such a phony! His hair is grayer today then it was yesterday. God I hate phony ass people. That goes for you too believe!
lol.
I don’t get it…his hair is gray so he’s a phony???
Figure it out idiot!!!!
He’s been dying his hair to appear new, young and fresh for the primaries against Hillary, now he wants to appear experienced, mature, more presidential against McCain in the GE, get it? Your Barky is a fucking chameleon. Damn, you are a newbie aren’t you? Hoping Barky will pop your political cherry?
BOBO in a bottle.
OMG that’s exactly what I thought when I saw the recent pictures of him–He is the consummate performer. He was dying his hair! The DNC has reduced this election to a tabloid popularity contest. B. Hussein is a man with no morals or conscience.
“Typical white nurse: He was dying his hair!”
Remember, only his hair dresser knows for sure.
He was dying it dip shit.
Hey,
Whatever happened to the birth certificate being a fake? I keep watching CNN and waiting for the Breaking News announcement.
And…what about the Whitey Tape? Is that going to be coming out anytime soon? Cause this site lost all its credibility after that mess. It would be nice for it to come out and help you guys out.
Just curious.
Both of these items are fringe fodder. Neither is needed to discredit Senator Obama and his campaign. His words and actions suffice.
Like I said…I hate phony ass people!
All in good time, little one, all in good time. Didn’t you get the memo, the GOP never rolls out a new “product” in the summertime. You’re new to this political thingy.
birth certificate: a clever rouse by obambi…but leads to a serious question as to whether he is a “natural born” american. My guess is that he was born in canada. Dual citizenship here as well.
whitey tape. the republicans don’t want to help HRC get the nomination, so they are holding it until after the convention. since you were born yesterday you haven’t read the history , so do so before you make any more of an ass out of yourself.
hey, how’s that FISA reversal going? HOw about OBama backing off on choice, even going against the supreme court? how about his withdrawal from iraq withdrawal, eh? how much more of his lying ass are you going to defend?
oh, i forgot, its a sexual thing.
“Slide Deployment Forced Obama Plane to Land”
Someone was mad as hell and couldn’t take it anymore.
Either that or some flight attendant was so transfixed by being in the presence of the Anointed One that he/she forgot to disarm the damn door!
If so, it is yet another instance of inattention and blind hero-worship so commonly seen among his disciples!
The caucus gives an undue influence to a small percentage of people who participate, many of them activists; when you compare them to a primary, the voter field gets wider and more diverse, and when compared to a GE, it gets wider still. I think the democrats will find that by setting up their system to be gamed in this fashion, they may be losing an election in a year made for them to win. Too bad that I have no confidence that they will learn anything from this – we’ll probably have the same crap system in 4 years.
There’s a story around about how Obama’s grandfather wanted him “mentored” by someone. It didn’t exactly sound like The Boys Club either. The guy turns out to have been a member of the communist party. What’s with that family anyway?
This is bullshit.
Maybe you should read Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My father, which is where that smear comes from. You don’t have to buy it, obviously. You can find it at the library for free.
Doesn’t BOBO idealize the father who left his family when he was two as a goat herd? LOL If that’s true then BOBO is essentially trying to turn his dead beat dad into and noble savage even though the guy would have had to be ranked in the top classes of Kenya to get to go to the USA to study for an advanced degree.
He wrote a whole book about his father. And his father was BOTH a goat herder and an accomplished economist. He presents both sides of the man.
Uh huh. Sure. And he ran out on Barky and Barky’s underaged mother. What a guy. That’s why he was raised by his white grandparents and his mother was on foodstamps. A real manly man there.
Did you read the book??????????
The whole thing is how his Dad really dissappointed him. You should really read it if you are going to comment on it.
how could BOBO’s father have disappointed him. BOBO didn’t know him. He was two when dear old dad left and BOBO only saw him once again at 10. The guy was a complete stranger.
I tried to, but his ghost writer was so bad I couldn’t stomach it.
Oh and by the by, the guy who did the Willie Horton ad is (I kid you not) ‘test marketing’ different passages from Obama’s book to see which of his less than savory lines will offend the most voters this fall. Could it be his drug use or his hatred of all this white…hmmmmm…only time will tell.
of course, you idiot. and of course he was disappointed. but he grew up a bitter man because of it, and because of his mother and white grandparents. that is why he has a problem with women, and in particular white women.
he is an arrogant punk ass trying to pass himself off as some great messiah. and people like you feed this egomaniac. better wake up, you’re already eating your own words, troll.
BOBO don’t know his father. His father abandoned the family and BOBO grew up elsewhere. BOBO saw him only once around the age of ten. I have serious doubts that BOBO presents both sides of anything.
No! Remember another Forrest Gump insert yourself in history moment…..JFK was responsible for getting Blah Blahs dad to the US!!
Not sure what dreams he got from his father, except to be an abusive junkie.
since you read the book, you better reread when he talks about his mention Frank, the poet.
**Google Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s grandfather, communist**
So your father’s not around (left or died, either) and your family’s not enough to shape you? I don’t get this grandfather person’s motivation.
Caucuses are cheaper to hold than primaries. It is also known as a “party builder”.to get people excited about the elections. But I just think that is a cover for the money angle.
What generally happens are the caucuses are given so much weight that whoever wins, along with urban areas ends up with the nomination. However, what usually happens is the nominee looses the general election What we saw is that states voting later in the primaries, usually the big swing states went for Clinton. Thus that would be a better indicator of who was in the best position for the general. Even those primary states had their difficulty. A vote in Philadelphia carried more influence than a vote in Erie PA.Even though Obama lost the state by 10 points, Clinton did not gain that much in net delegates awarded.
The SD’s had a choice to either go against their own loosing primary system or focus on the swing state and primary states that were similar to the general election. But of course ..stupid is as stupid does.
The excuse that those that don’t go to caucuses are not real voters or democrats does not play out in the general election. That is when the real vote counts for office. It is just like the youngins not to see the forest from the trees. The elderly do vote in large percentages in the general election whether they go to caucuses or not. The elderly I know from NE Ohio are probably going to vote for McCain. They were all Hillary supporters. States with large percentages of seniors, CA, OH, PA, FL, NY, NJ. Count the electoral college for those states alone. Then add the seniors who didn’t caucus in those states and how will they vote?
John McCain is a senior. Maybe the seniors will play identity politics this year.
There is no doubt in my mind that the caucus system is a very poor approach and should be eliminated ASAP so that it does not impact another election. That said, to pretend that somehow the system was designed so Obama would win is a bit nuts. After all, other than Texas, the exact same 13 states had caucuses in ‘04 as well. Not to mention the fact (that everyone forgets nowadays) the Clintons owned the Democratic party until a few months ago.
So, yes, caucuses bad. Get rid of them before ‘13 primaries. But don’t believe that they are part of some Obama conspiracy.
No he just knew how to rig it so he won. Bozo. Don’t tell me what I saw.
Please. So you were at all the caucuses? Must have been tiring.
where does the author pretend that somehow the caucus system was designed so Obama would win ted?
WildChild, I am not up for another marathon, so let me try and get this in one carefully worded comment. I did not, repeat, I did not (as in the opposite of I did) claim that the author of the post – which was the best I have read on this site – pretended anything about the system being designed to favor Obama.
In other words, I was not attributing that to the author.
I hope that is clear.
That’s great ted. Because you responded to the article as though you were responding to something said in the article. LOL but since by your own admission you weren’t responding to the article or attributing the comment to the author nor were you responding to another poster or attributing the comment to them … that would leave you basically making shit up again. LMAO nice work sparkles.
I see. So when someone puts something in their comment that is not a direct response to the author or another comment, then the content is, by definition, made up? I was not aware of that rule.
So I guess your point is it would not be crazy to think that the caucus system was designed to favor Obama? Or are you claiming it is not a claim by some of the loons that the whole election was rigged to favor Obama? If nobody is claiming that, then cool, no need to even discuss it. Skip that part of my comment and just focus onthe part where I say cacuses suck and I hope they are eliminated before the next election.
LMAO don’t get all crazy on me Ted. I usually only respond to the original post or the comments that follow. I’ll leave the making shit up fantasy posting for you to do. LOL Does that sound like a plan?
This is my feeling as well.
I am an Obama supporter but I do think that he benefited from the caucus system because his supporters were more likely to participate in them. So in that sense, you could say it was unfair. But I doubt Hillary’s supporters would be complaining if the shoe was on the other foot. Also, the fact that he ran an infinitely better campaign is relevant to why he should be president and is the reason he won.
Hillary would have never gotten kids to vote for her that didn’t belong in my district.
Being the best campaigner is the reason he (or anyone that fits that description) should be president? Do not substantive issues count for anything?
Well, I think he has those too.
But he built his campaign from the bottom up and completely out-organized the Clinton who were veterans of the political process.
So I think that counts for a lot. In other words, I think he will run the country like he ran his campaign.
then we are shit out of luck consisdering there are no more caucuses for awhile.
Think about that though. When a President and a bunch of congressmen get together to discuss stuff, it is actually a lot more like a caucus that an election. They try to persuade each other, and then the congressmen go off and vote.
Note: this is only a semi-serious comment, so no need to get all worked up about it.
sorry ted. There is no check and balance in a caucus. Your analogy only applies to congressmen getting together and discussing legislation.
I don’t follow. All I meant was the prez meets with like-minded and opposition congressmen to discuss potential legislation all the time.
Of course this really is a bogus point, because it wasn’t Obama himelf at the caucuses. Tha’s why I said don’t get worked up about it.
Is Ted saying that if Obama becomes president (excuse me…ok, better now)..that he will bus in THUGS to threaten and intimidate legislators???
Obama had nothing to do with “running” his campaign.
He had Bill Clinton’s “OLD” campaign managers.
hey Laura, how is it there in Aurora, IL ?
I think if Hillary had pulled what Obama did in the Caucus, you’d have your own anti- Hillary site !!
Again, I commiserate with Hillary supporters on the caucus issue. I do think that Obama benefitted from them. So I can understand why that was frustrating.
But Hillary benefitted from racism. People in West Virginia and Kentucky basically voted against the black guy. So, in that sense, I think they were even.
BOBO benefited from racism too. His campaign called Bill Clinton a racist and the AA vote flocked to him.
That’s not true.
Besides, there is a big difference between voting for someone because you are proud that an African American could be president….versus voting against someone because you don’t like “nigg*rs”.
ah so now it’s because they were proud of BOBO. During the primaries you BOBOweenies were pushing that AA’s support moved BOBO’s way because of Bill Clintons racist remarks after SC. Your story moves the way of BOBOpostions…with the time of day.
There you go…the only reason someone would vote for Hillary is because they are racist.
LOL…
The flip flopping all June proves what Hillary and her supporters have said for months is true….but her voter are still racists.
No Laura…you are the ignorant racist if that is the only reason you can see to oppose him.
They were asked if race played a role. For many people who believe Obama is racist, at least he went to a church for 20 years that preached racist things, they voted against him because they didn’t want a racist in the whitehouse.
how come women didn’t vote 90%+ for Hillary? i’m sorry but the race-based voting of african-americans was blatant and not good for the democratic party or america.
Now you really piss me off !!!!!!!!You’re a lying little punk!!!!!!!
Hey Tampa
I posted this towards the top but I wanted to show you the extent of the fraud here in Washington. In other words I feel your voter pain down in Florida
Washington state has been the one state overlooked regarding deliberate fraud in the nominating process
Washing ton State has both a primary and a caucus. For reasons I can not understand only the Caucus counts for delegates to the democrat convention.
Here are the results which reflect beyond a doubt that one person one vote doesn’t count in Washington State.
Primary Feb 19th
Obama……51,22%….354112 votes
Hillary… 45.67%….315744
Caucus Feb 9th
Obama……68%……..13209 votes ……Del 68
Hillary….31%………6409…………..Del 27
As you can see the spread in the primay is 6 points but didn’t count.
In the caucus where Chicago style intimidation and bully tactics by Obama Brownshirts the spread is an enormous 37%
When reporting this story on primary night the MSM such as the NY times reported the primary as a caucus but showed the popular vote. This was how they could mask the fact that the primary was so close but the delegate total so out of proportion to the popular vote.
Where I come we call that fraud and deception!
Seattle, It’s time to bring the party down. All this time we have been paying for these election thinking we were picking the nominee and all along the nominee has really been the party leaders choice. We would have never known any of this if it hadn’t happened to Hillary.
Yeah Tamapa
This year I found out what it’s like to be a Serf who has overlords that do not count my vote and decide for me what candidate I should get.
Time to make a stand!!
Right on Seattle, this board is driving me crazy tonight, it’s all over the place
Total Bullshit Laura West almost everything you stated was a lie – how surprising coming from yet another ignorant, compulsively simple Obama supporter
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythical.html
But she likes his hair, he’s sexy, that’s why she’s voting for him!
What did I say that was a lie? I can respond to you if you point it out.
Laura you remind me of believe was that your name earlier?
you read my mind tampagirl
This is who I think believe, I mean Laura is.
Location: Aurora, IL
Why I support Barack Obama: He believes, as I do, that we can all have better.
Birth Date: April 1st
Issues: Meeting Americas Energy Needs; Improving Our Schools; Creating a Healthcare System that Works; Strengthening Families and Communities; Protecting The Right to Vote
Registered to Vote: Yes
Beware how you take away hope from another human being -Oliver Wendell Holmes
lol.
I don’t know where you got that from. That’s not me. But I AM an Obama supporter, obviously.
Laura, Do you honestly believe that Obama can carry out all the promises he has made? Please think about it for a minute and answer truthfully>
Nope. I know who believe is because I saw His/her comments. But I am not this person.
Also, why would it matter? lol. We are all anonymous people on the internet.
I just think this site has gone way too far with the conspiracy theories. So I feel the need to bring a little reason.
Yep I always say on the internet you can be anyone you want to be…most of the time!!!
Right. And didn’t we determine that “believe” was Meechelle in disguise? Miss Piggy herself!
You said Hillary benefited from racism, that’s the lie!!! Obama benefited from racism. Are you going to tell me 98% of the black vote wasn’t racism???? You need to grow up!!!!
My sense is that he is responding to your claim that graduating “cum laude” from Harvard is graduating with “damn good grades.” “Cum laude” does not mean “damn good,” if it means slightly above average, though it need not mean that. It could mean slightly above average.
As I understand the system, top students at Harvard Law, those with a grade point average of 7.2, where A = 7 and A+ = 8, are awarded the merit “summa cum laude.” The next top 10% of the students, those with an average below 7.2, are awarded ‘magna cum laude.” The next 30% below these are awarded the distinction “cum laude.”
How many students achieve “summa cum laude?” I do not know the numbers. Before Obama, these were the pool of students from which the law review editor was chosen. The point to take here is that without his grades and ranking we can only estimate that he was a good (top 40% +% summa) to very good (top 10% + %summa) student. The greater the number of summa students, the lower Obama’s ranking.
If he releases his grades, perhaps we’ll see that he was on the cusp of magna and, therefore, excellent.
I could be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure he graduated magna cum laude.
She said cum laude. I do not know. If he is magna, he’s below top tier, but that’s not bad.
Anyone with common sense can see that it’s going to be a GE disaster if BO is declared the nominee. He and his MSM minions all live in Ozbama, where red states magically turn blue. States where a Blue Dog couldn’t win, mind you, but the Golden One can swing it.
Today, on CSPAN, Prof. Stephen Cohen of NYU said that he was going to vote for BO simply because he wants to see a black person become Prez. Well, one far-lefty at least told the unvarnished truth about his white guilt–which he no doubt suffers from to the point of delusion, swearing that KY used to practice “apartheid…total segregation”! He doesn’t give O very good odds, though, so even the most confused of us has periods of clarity.
Wow. you deny segregation existed in KY? Check this out:
Jim Crow Laws: Kentucky Close
Typical of most border states, Kentucky passed numerous segregation laws after the Civil War (17). Beginning in 1866, a miscegenation law was passed that carried a felony penalty with imprisonment in the state penitentiary up to five years. A 1909 statute called for the establishment of an institution to care for black deaf mutes, with the provision that the two races would be “kept entirely separate and distinct from each other.” No anti-segregation laws were passed before 1948. A miscegenation statute was still in effect in 1955.
1866: Miscegenation [Statute]
Prohibited whites from marrying any Negro or any descendant of any Negro to the third generation inclusive. Penalty: Felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary up to five years.
1866: Education [Statute]
School district trustees given right to create separate schools for black children.
1868: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited separate schools based on race.
1869: Barred public accommodations and carrier segregation [Statute]
Prohibited excluding passengers from railroads, streetcars, steamboats, coaches or other vehicles based on race. Allowed for a person’s removal if they did not pay the fare, or engaged in disorderly conduct, or committed an act that injured the business of the carrier. Penalty: Forfeiture of the license and closing of the place of business; offender liable to suit by the injured party to recover damages.
1870: Barred anti-miscegenation [State Code]
Private or religious marriages legal to all persons of whatever race or color as well as to marriages formerly prohibited by any law of the state. No language prohibiting intermarriage or miscegenation.
1873: Education [Statute]
Unlawful for a black child to attend a white school, and the reverse. “No colored school shall be located within one mile of a white school, except in cities and towns, where it may not be within six hundred feet.”
1873: Barred public accommodations and carrier segregation [Statute]
Ensured all Louisiana and U.S. citizens equal and impartial access to use all common carriers on land and water, inns and all public resorts. Penalty: Forfeiture of business license. Liable for damages in favor of the injured party.
1890: Railroads [Statute]
Railway companies to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and colored passengers. Penalty: Passengers or conductors not complying with the law subject to a fine of $25 or imprisonment for 20 days. Officers and directors of railway companies that fail to comply guilty of a misdemeanor and could be fined between $100 and $500. Law did not apply to streetcars.
1891: Education [Statute]
Unlawful for black and white children to attend the same schools.
1892: Railroads [Statute]
Railroads to provide separate coaches for white and colored passengers. Signs must be posted stating the race for each car. Penalty: Railway companies that failed to comply could be fined from between $500 to $1,500. Conductors who failed to enforce the law were to be fined from $50 to $100.
1893: Miscegenation [Statute]
Marriage prohibited between a white person and a Negro or mulatto.
1894: Railroads [Statute]
Depots must provide equal but separate waiting rooms for the white and colored races. “No person shall occupy the wrong room.” Law must be posted in a conspicuous place. Penalty: Persons who insist on entering the improper place may be fined $25 or imprisoned up to 30 days. Agents failing to enforce the law guilty of misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $25 to $50.
1894: Miscegenation [Statute]
Intermarriage between white persons and persons of color prohibited.
1898: Education [Constitution]
General Assembly to establish free public schools for the white and colored races.
1902: Streetcars [Statute]
All streetcars must provide separate but equal accommodations. Penalty: Passengers or conductors not complying could receive a fine of $25 or imprisonment up to 30 days. A railway company that refused to comply could receive a fine of $100, or imprisonment between 60 days and six months.
1904: Education [Statute]
Unlawful to maintain or operate any college, school or institution where persons of the white and Negro races are both received as pupils. Law did not prohibit private schools or colleges from maintaining a separate and distinct branch, in a different locality, not less than 25 miles apart, for the education exclusively of one race or color. Penalty: Violators fined $1,000.
1908: Public accommodation [Statute]
Unlawful for whites and blacks to buy and consume alcohol on the same premises. Penalty: Misdemeanor, punishable by a fine between $50 to $500, or imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.
1908: Miscegenation [Statute]
Concubinage between the Caucasian or white race and any person of the Negro or black race is a felony. Penalty: Imprisonment from one month to one year, with or without hard labor.
1909: Health Care [State Code]
Institution for education of colored deaf mutes established. “But the two races shall be forever kept entirely separate and distinct from each other.”
1910: Miscegenation [Statute]
Restatement of the law passed in 1908, using the words “Persons of the Caucasian and colored races.”
1912: Residential [Statute]
Building permits for building Negro houses in white communities, or any portion of a community inhabited principally by white people, and vice versa prohibited. Penalty: violators fined from $50 to $2,000, “and the municipality shall have the right to cause said building to be removed and destroyed.”
1914: Public accommodation [Statute]
All circuses, shows and tent exhibitions required to provide two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers and two entrances to the performance for each race.
1915: Education [Statute]
No white children to attend any graded common school for colored children and vice versa.
1918: Prisons [Statute]
Provided for the segregation of the races in all municipal, parish and state prisons.
1921: Education [Constitution]
Called for separate, free public schools for the education of white and black children between the ages of six and eighteen years.
1921: Housing [Statute]
Prohibited Negro and white families from living in the same dwelling place.
1928: Education [Statute]
Prescribed separate textbooks for white and black school children.
1928: Public Carrier [Statute]
Equal but separate accommodations to be provided on all public carriers.
1932: Residential [State Code]
No person or corporation shall rent an apartment in an apartment house or other like structure to a person who is not of the same race as the other occupants.
1932: Miscegenation [State Code]
Outlawed interracial marriages. Nullified interracial marriages if parties went to another jurisdiction where such marriages were legal. Also prohibited Negroes and Indians to marry each other.
1933: Public accommodations [Statute]
Authorized the establishment of separate library facilities for Negroes in certain cities.
1934: Education [Statute]
Required schools to be racially segregated.
1942: Health Care [Statute]
Separate but equal accommodations for the races to be provided in old age homes.
1944: Miscegenation [Statute]
Marriage between a white person and a Negro or mulatto was prohibited and void. Penalty: Fine of $500 to $5,000. If continued to cohabitate would be imprisoned in the penitentiary for three to twelve months.
1944: Railroads [Statute]
Called for separate coaches or compartments for white and colored passengers.
1948: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Amended law to allow Negro physician and nurses to take postgraduate studies in public hospitals in Louisville.
1950: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Permitted blacks to attend institutions of higher learning in Kentucky under two conditions. Students could attend if a school’s governing body approved and if comparable courses were not available at the Kentucky College for Negroes in Frankfort, KY.
1951: Miscegenation [Statute]
Cohabitation between whites and blacks illegal. Penalty: Up to $1,000, or up to five years imprisonment, or both.
1951: Adoption [Statute]
Forbid interracial adoptions.
1952: Miscegenation [State Code]
Prohibited marriage between whites and persons of color. Penalty: Up to $1,000 and/or five years imprisonment.
1953: Health Care [Statute]
Separate tuberculosis hospitals to be established for blacks. Repealed in 1954.
1954: Education [Statute]
Immediately after the Brown decision, Louisiana amended its Constitution to state that all public and elementary schools would be operated separately for white and black children. Penalty: $500 to $1,000 for not enforcing and imprisonment from three to six months.
1955: Miscegenation [Statute]
Prohibited marriage between whites and Negroes. Penalty: $500 to $5,000. If cohabitation continues, imprisonment for three to 12 months.
1956: Public carriers [Statute]
Revised older laws requiring that common carriers provide separate waiting rooms for white intrastate passengers and for Negro intrastate and interstate passengers.
1956: Employment [Statute]
Provided that all persons, firms or corporations create separate bathroom facilities for members of the white and Negro races employed by them or permitted to come upon their premises. In addition, separate eating places in separate rooms as well as separate eating and drinking utensils were to be provided for members of the white and Negro races. Penalty: Misdemeanor, $100 to $1,000, 60 days to one year imprisonment.
1956: Recreation [Statute]
Firms were prohibited from permitting on their premises any dancing, social functions, entertainments, athletic training, games, sports or contests in which the participants are members of the white and Negro races.
1956: Public accommodations [Statute]
All public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, etc. would be segregated. This provision was made “for the purpose of protecting the public health, morals and the peace and good order in the state and not because of race.”
1956: Public carrier [Statute]
Public carriers to be segregated.
1957: Education [Constitution]
All public schools to be racially segregated.
1957: Education [Statute]
Compulsory attendance suspended in school systems where integration ordered; no state funds to non-segregated schools.
1958: Health Care [Statute]
All human blood to be used in the state of Louisiana for transfusions to be labeled with the word “Caucasian,” “Negroid,” or “Mongoloid” so as to clearly indicate the race of the donor. If the blood was not labeled it was not permitted to be used.
1960: Voting rights [Statute]
Required that the race of all candidates named on ballots be designated.
Of course KY had segregation.
One thing I ALMOST could not believe on NQ – folks calling Jesse Helms a hero earlier today. Jesse Helms! And they think they can make anyone believe that they are Democrats who supported Clinton?
That was an Obama mole, twat.
Read the link simple person.
I am from Deep South Texas and I participated in the Texas Two Step. I went to caucus for Hillary and we had to wait an hour or more because they didn’t have the list of registered voters. A lot of people left the caucus site because it was taking too long. I was there for hours. I know a lot of people who didn’t go to the caucus because they had night classes, work, children and no babysitter or no ride over there. The caucus system does not reflect the will of the voters. Hillary won the primary here in Texas and she should have got the majority of the delegates. I recently received an email from the Texas Democratic Party saying that they were thinking of getting rid of the caucus. I even did the survey they had in the email. There should not be caucuses in any state. They are undemocratic and suppress votes.
the economy in the tank, Iraq….I don’t see what the h*** these things have to do with segregation..
How does Cohen explain somebody like Noobama Girl?
The standard criticisms of caucuses that you air are legitimate, but not new. The darker allegations about possible voter fraud are completely unsubstantiated. There certainly was a caucus factor, and it probably was some mix of the demographic factors you cite, and the Obama campaign’s greater interest in and attention to the caucus process, resulting in more resources invested in turning out supporters in caucuses than those invested by the Clinton campaign. Why did the Clinton campaign do this? It’s hard to say. They criticized caucuses as undemocratic because they, at some point, started expecting Obama to sweep them. Why did they create or sustain this self-fulfilling prophecy instead of actually competing in the caucuses? Did they honestly believe that convincing media talking heads that caucuses were less democratic than primaries would erase the pledged delegates that Obama earned in those caucuses?
Anyway, I think most people who have considered the issue and haven’t post-hoc committed to supporting the caucus process in a completely results-oriented way (”I like caucuses because Obama won them”) will agree that caucuses are inferior to primaries as a method of accurately determining the electorate’s preferences. If this post is an attempt to highlight problems with the caucus system and get it changed for the next nominating cycle, great, I’m right there with you. If it’s an attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Obama’s victory, it’s stupid, unconvincing, and ill-conceived. Caucuses were part of the process that both candidates committed to participating in. Clinton didn’t have the right, moral or otherwise, to discount the pledged delegates Obama earned in caucuses simply because his team proved to be better at organizing for them. You cannot change the rules in the middle of the nominating process (or after the nominating process has concluded, for that matter) because it turns out those rules were more effectively put to use by the candidate you didn’t prefer.
blaah blaah blaah blaah blaah talking points blaah blaah blaah blaah blaah
Why did they create or sustain this self-fulfilling prophecy instead of actually competing in the caucuses? Did they honestly believe that convincing media talking heads that caucuses were less democratic than primaries would erase the pledged delegates that Obama earned in those caucuses?
Having volunteered NUMEROUS hours of GOTV work on behalf of Senator Clinton, I can firmly attest that there was a clear hardship for many women when it came to attending caucuses. The majority of females I spoke with were able to vote in the Texas primary (there as early voting) and they were very excited about having cast their vote for Hillary. Once I mentioned that they were not done yet, that they had to show up at a caucus on a later date, and in the evening, many protested that they could not attend at night. Some had children to take care of, others didn’t drive, still others relied on their daughters who lived miles away to drive them to places.
I have no idea what they thought with regard to pledged delegates, but I must say I certainly thought the supers would be wise enough to take all of this info i, including where Hillary won and that she took almost all the rural vote (she would easily obtain the city-folk in the general), but they did not. My hunch is many were pressured, and I know money changed hands (google boston globe, super delegates, february 14, 2008).
It’s a shame that Clinton gave people the impression that the supers would overturn the pledged delegates.
That was NEVER going to happen. Supers who supported Clinton said it wouldn’t both before and after Obama cliched. It really caused hard feelings because people thought that might not happen. Clinton really knew better.
The Superdelegates voted against the will of the democratic voters. Hillary won the popular vote, not Obama.
And if only winning the popular vote was a metric that mattered in the primary, you might have a point. But, no, it’s about delegates. Which was Obama’s strategy. Win the delegates.
Which, you will note, is the same with the general election. Popular vote does not mean a thing (as recent history has proved). It’s all about the electoral college.
‘Illegitimacy’ comes into play, only if there is proven illegality, fraud or intimidation (I believe there is an ongoing project to document these allegations).
The larger point is that where you have 2 candidates whose number of delegates is extremely close, delegates won thru Primaries represent more voters than ones won thru caucuses.
The object of the exercise is to choose a candidate who can win the GE, no?
[...] It all sounds fishy to me. But maybe I’m still sore because my primary vote here in California was only worth 1/415th the… [...]
WHAT THEY’RE UP TO.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) participated in a DNC conference call announcing the football stadium venue for the convention speech. She talked about the plusses of hosting the convention in Denver, Kansas’ neighbor, and the resurgence of the party in the Rocky Mountain west, which used to be “solidly Republican.” Left unmentioned was a vice presidential nominating speech,
Laura West has had too much kool-aid, or is it fool-aid? The current polls mean nothing and PUMA POWER will defeat this empty suit fraud who thinks he’s the messiah. Her one vote just got cancelled.
The texas caucus was the most unorganized event I have ever attended. I witnessed one person voting for BO in two different districts, others were allowed without any id at all. What a joke, there needs to be a reform to the texas two step. NO MORE CAUCUSES!!!
Here’s a crazy idea for the democratic party going forward….primary no caucus and winner take all. It works for the republicans. Just a thought.
WE WILL REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
McCain ‘08 (no mater who the dem VP is)
or Hillary (if the dems wise up and realize she should be the democratic nominee)
winner take all will really discount the smaller states. But caucuses will be history, I think that much is certain.
I will never vote Democratic again if the DNC doesn’t get rid of caucuses, and every state counts the people’s votes and the winner takes all delegates. Also only registered Democrats allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. The Repubs voted for Obama in the either party vote states because they knew he would be easier to beat in the GE.
The trolls are here en masse. I suppose this means they are back to the tactic of polluting non-Obama blogs because they recognize the expression of free thought is a threat to their candidate’s success. What they do not realize is that it is their methods that created the anti-Obama movement. They act, PUMA grows.
It’s really bad tonight Steve. A bunch of airheads that don’t believe he will carry out his promises but think he is smart and has good character. Oh they have a lot to learn!!!
I’m sure he’ll carry out as many of his promises as other presidents.
I mean, really, Bill Clinton didn’t pass health care reform when he had a Democratic Congress and I still think he’s a good president.
WHAT, you ignorant twat, Newt Gingrich ringing any bells? The Repubs took control half way through his admin. and he was hamstringed. Dumbass. LURKERS. Please see The Hunting of A President on DVD.
That is an excellent movie Strawberry, we just watched it again the other day. It brought back memories, bad memories of course!
Didn’t Clinton understand the rules under which delegates are awarded?
If not, that doesn’t show a lot of preparation for running for president.
If yes, she can’t complain about losing under the rules she knew about (and of course she did, since her husband ran for president twice) and which her folks, like Ickes, helped craft.
Kinda sick of this ‘rules’ shit. Rules my ASS. Clinton agreeing???? She’s a member of ‘the party’ and they tell her what to do. WE are the members of the party who have been marginalized. We’re sick to death of your ‘rules’ bullshit.
If my vote counts half, then where is that right? Oh yah…it’s right in YOUR book if it benefits your
messiah, I mean candidate.Interesting.
There are rules for elections, like there are rules for sports. These govern whether you win or lose.
I know you feel bad that Obama won but he did win – according to the rules.
I’ve had to have this sort of conversation with my kids when their team lost – and they got it.
Assuming you’re an adult, I wonder if anyone sat down and told you about accepting a loss.
We aren’t discussing Clinton now. We’re talking McCain. No one has lost yet. We’re extremely confident and you shouldn’t count your voters before they are in the booth.
My response was to someone who WAS talking about Clinton.
or her chickens before they come home to roost.
Clinton had major supporters on the committee that set the rules. The best known is Harold Ickes but there were others as well, including the co-chair of RBC.
Laura West ,
Your BS meter is reading off the scale.
Uhhhhh, yup. Laura West appears to be one of the ‘trolls’ who have grown weary of their now boring pro-Obama-tron forums.
Laura, I’m sure you have run off anyone who even marginally disagrees with you in your ‘home’ forums, so why don’t you go back there so you can sit around and slap each other on the back about all of your candidate’s fine attributes. Why don’t you continue to ignore PUMA and those of us who will actively oppose your messiah on all levels? Don’t worry ’bout us. We’re nothing. he he he
Comment by believe | 2008-07-07 19:34:07
Didn’t Clinton understand the rules under which delegates are awarded?
If not, that doesn’t show a lot of preparation for running for president.
So Clinton should have prepared and put thugs in place to intimidate voters like Obama , get real.
You are full of it. Obama didn’t win two-thirds of the contests because of “thugs.” You have ZERO evidence to support that.
False. There is evidence of intimidation and bullying in the caucuses and these count as thuggery. Some evidence is more than zero evidence so your statement is false. How surprising.
What evidence? Where is it? Why didn’t Clinton talk about that even once? NOT ONCE.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/04/texas-caucus-fraud/
How many complaints were filed in Texas about Obama camp cheating, stealing sign in sheets early, filling out peoples names that weren’t there? locking the Hillary supporters out? Last I heard there were over 1000 reported
I can’t say about the caucuses, but based on the commenters here, the obama folks are far and away better mannered and present logic and facts, while a good percentage (maybe 50% or so) of the Clinton people are all about namecalling and making completely unfounded statements.
Ted this is the most twisted, convoluted “logic” I’ve read yet. You are trying to argue that because there’s some pd’ off commenters here (and rightly so pd’) that that somehow PROVES there was no thuggery in the caucuses months ago????
Many of the commenters here I think are pd’ off BECAUSE of the thuggery in the caucuses. I have been the beneficiary of some of the most sexist, vular, vile disgusty comments spewing more hate than I have seen or heard in my lifetime.
This is another complaint on the caucuses. My sister-in-law and her sister went to a caucus in TX. They were booed and curse by the Obama supporters and some people were actually pushed. Many Clinton supporters left and a complaint was filed. Thats when I decided I no longer wanted to be a part of the new Democratic Party.
If Iowa, the first state was a primary state, Hillary would have won the Iowa primary because she lost by only 1%. The bigger margin came in when all the other candidates tried to throw Hillary off the Island of Iowa and told their supporters to vote for Obama. Think of it. If she would have won Iowa and then New Hampshire, Obama most likely would have been finished even if you maintained all the other caucuses. The candidate for the Democrats would have been Hillary. What a miscarriage of the peoples will. What can we the people do to change this? It must change to bring back democracy to this country. People laugh at us in other countries. We tell them how to vote yet are system is a piece of crap.
The polls showing Obama sinking to a dead-heat matchup with McCain have them in a state of shock and terror. They thought the GE was going to be like a big giant caucus and everyone would share the Kool-Aid and the luuve and the hope and vote for the him becuz he’s a “goodlooking guy” (BLECCCCH. Oh well, lots of Puggies thought Dubya was a man hunk too. Blind adoration is, well, blind.)
Hey, ‘bots, since you hold such sway with your Messiah, could you pleeeeze pleeeeeze pleeeze tell him to pick McCaskill as VP??? Pretty please? ‘Cuz I have my popcorn and my skittle and my chilled bottle of pinot ready to go for GE night and don’t want to miss out on all the fun!
i’m just curious. is anything ever HILLARY’s fault? is she just some magical flawless candidate? i’m just curious, cause that’s what you guys seem to believe. you say Obama won the nomination on caucuses, okay… so why did Hillary allow it to happen? why did she completely ignore caucus states until the last minute? i used to think this one of the more intelligent blogs, but it’s getting closer and closer to Hillary is 44 every day.
[...] THE CAUCUS FACTOR http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/07/the-caucus-factor/#more-3453 Texas Caucus Faud http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/04/texas-caucus-fraud/#more-2385 Why Obama [...]
[...] nomination which, in an anti-Bush year, was the ticket to the presidency. Originally published on July 7, 2008. We miss your contributions like this great report, Dr. Long, and wish you the very, very best. – [...]
[...] Lynette Long on caucus irregularities and caucuses. [...]