The Lest We Forget series: THE CAUCUS FACTOR
By Dr. Lynette Long on January 20, 2009 at 11:40 PM in Current Affairs
[The "lest we forget" series is to remind each other and new readers just how Obama managed to win the 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 with your health challenges. We're rooting for you. - Susan]
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.
[The "lest we forget" series is to remind each other and new readers just how Obama managed to win the nomination which, in an anti-Bush year, was the ticket to the presidency.]
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.
[The "lest we forget" series is to remind each other and new readers just how Obama managed to win the nomination which, in an anti-Bush year, was the ticket to the presidency.]
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."
I hope that by the time the next election comes around the CAUCUS factor is gone and its all by popular vote.
For some reason I have a feeling that we will be seeing a rise in new Congressional people by the next Congreasional election, probably more Republicans.
hussien obama is a FRAUD. If it was not for all the cheating and media frenzy, Hillary would’ve been our president.
Ya know, I’m really trying to get over my anger issues in regards to what happened here in Washington State…(Hillary delegate) this isn’t helping. That’s okay, I’ll just send you either my therapist’s bill or my bar tab…whichever is less…so far, after today, it’s my therapy bill.
I prescribe four shots of tequila, each with three splashes of Tabasco in the tequila prior to consumption. You will, feel better
Tequila and I are no longer on speaking terms…trust me…it’s for the best. The real reason you’ll never see me run for public office.
It seems like you and I met the same bottle.
I don’t want to butt in but I sure like Patron chased with beer
I chased Patron with Cristal once. Big mistake. It made me throw up almost as much as the thought of the inauguration.
By the way, thanks to Dr. Long for fighting the good fight throughout this whole debacle.
AAmen to the Thanks Part..
LOL…Bottle of Wine…Makes me fell Fine..Don’t Ya Know..
Feel Fine and Fall Fine too..
Ensenada, Mexico, 1994…I was told there were pictures.
Ywh..I Posted em on youtube
Just tell me my butt didn’t look big.
Was that yur Butt..????
OK..It wasn’t…Looked OK to me..
So, Strawberrybitch, what do you suggest? 1) stop talking about it so it will just magically go away. 2) Say to hell with it and get behind BO. 3) wait for 2012 and have a repeat performance.
I would suggest sending this abbreviated version to your congressman/woman, your US Senator, your governor, and a copy to the new DNC Chairman with a link to Dr. Long’s website. I would demand that they outlaw the presidential caucus since Washington State was one of the offending states analyzed by Dr. Long. These elected officials work for you.
You had to bring up the caucus didn’t you…
In my precinct there was three buses lined up outside and inside were Obamabots with bullhorns intimidating the Hillary supporters.
I know they were ACORN and not from my part of town. We don’t have low rents around here.
I was there too MOSS..saw it..Was a hillary delegate..Was a BOMA BAT TROLL TRIPPER..
I think I might of upset a few in my neighborhood towards the end of the campaign. I don’t care!
I got an e-mail from the head of the precinct who wanted me to phone bank for obama since I was a Hillary delegate.
I quickly responded to all telling them that the Caucus was gamed that they used intimidation tactics and showed overt sexism towards Hillary and she should have been the candidate.I finished off by saying that Obama was a Marxist and that Obama was going to cause a collapse in the economy and retreat and defeat in Iraq.
I’m proud of my vote for McCain.. Especially after what I saw today.
I WROTE HILLARYS NAME ON MY BALLOT..
at My Local and Congressional Caucus..There was a Big African (American) guy Directing the Obama side..Head Mumbo JUMBO Team Leader..He was Hugh..had Bulging muscles ..(well not down there that i could see)…
His Head was Shaved ..Was wearing sunglass’s inside on a Rainy day…kind you can’t see through..He had some kinda Star Struck ear Piece in his ear..(or some kind of ugly Growth) He would walk right up to us Hillary People in the caucus room and tower over us and Glare…never said a Word..
I would call that intimidation..there were little trolls every where carrying Hugh OBAMA signs..would escourt all us delegates to our district room for Voting..
hmmmmm..Taken right out of the SDS Play book..
directed by Billy Boomer Ayers..
Oh I forgot..he was just a Nieghbor from the HOOD..
I’ve lost all faith in my former home state (Wa) and the democratic party. The caucus system is symptomatic of the what’s wrong with the dems. They bamboozled and cheated to have their Obama.
They can keep him.
Obama may wish he never gamed this election. Six months from now when the food riots start
Is it headed to that in WA? Food shortages?
I was out all day today after the inauguration. Not one person, salesperson, wait staff or hairdresser mentioned or even indicated that Obama became president today.
It was eerie. It was as if it never happened.
Either americans are really just not that in to him or they are wishing it would all go away.
Yeh..me too..even got my Haicut and the BARBER didn’t even talk about it..But he’s Italian..
Buzz,
What we have witnessed over the past year are only announcements of what’s going bad.
Soon will be the consequences of this collapsing economy.
Nationwide there will be all types of civil strife and rises in crime.
This day in History will be just a distant memory for those that put all their faith in this faux messiah.
I was out yesterday also, only saw a brief glimpse of the show in D.C. because our bank runs a news channel only TV; however, it was like two different worlds; the real one we live in and the fake one on TV which no one was paying attention to. Reminded me of how people avoid looking at street people talking to themselves — know they are there but making no eye contact.
All his supporters were at the inauguration and not back yet is probably why you didn’t hear him mentioned.
Hey..I’m a Green State Web Foot too..!!
Just a little quacker..(with Cheese and Wine)
Hope he gets that three AM Phone call this Morning..LOL
Personally, I would love it if he got a 3 am call every morning. Hmmm, what would karma sound like?
Voices in his head? Security updates on the status of the pissed off world? Michelle screaming get your stinky feet off of me?
The champagne is chillin’ and my patience is willin’
to wait to see the karmic takedown of this villain!!!
LOL That was a good rant..!!
Okay so my poetry is bad.
I’m just so sad that the true president will have to wait, too.
Stay strong Hillary!!
Meanwhile, how do we get rid of the caucus system?
You won’t until we have a revolution.
Be careful what you ask for Touchet…But I sincerely think the caucus system will be done away with. Especially in Texas.
The problem will be all the dems that want to keep caucuses to help re-elect BO in 2012. These people have no incentive to change anything, but we MUST!
From what I understand the county and state conventions were just as bad as the caucuses. Those conventions were taken over by the Obama people and MoveOn.org just like the caucuses were. The Obama supporters received text messages to remind them of the caucuses AND the conventions. And they were told to take them over!
In some cases the delegates from the caucuses were altered at those conventions – in Obama’s favor of course. I read some place that even though Hillary won the NV caucuses, Obama got more delegates at the state convention.
Sorry for the rehash, but we must understand it to change it!
This article should be a wake up call to all of you. America has become so corrupted, that anyone can buy an elections and call it “good organization”.
Obama had the money to bus people in so he won. This is called an unfair advantage in sports, that is all a caucus is–a political wrangle.
I wonder how many elections its going to take, with shifting rules, regulations, and laws, to make people realize that this is nothing more than a chess game.
Depending on whose in power, what state, and whom they support determines who is going to win. It comes down to a signature from the secretary of that state.
Sigh.
Yawn..
Touchet, you may be right.
Thank you Dr. Long. This is old news to most of us, with thanks for all the great research. Too bad the rest of the country has their heads up their OButts and don’t “get it.”
When I first heard of this theft and fraud, I instantly was told about Alice Palmer and what phony-fraud, cheater Obama did to HER. It’s a disgraceful story, and Ms. Palmer ended up with what I hear were death threats if she didn’t STFU and tow the line.
Obama learned early that he could get away with murder, so he was thrilled to hook up with those thugs in Congress, Pelosi, Reid and their vile pal Howie Dean. Can you imagine a more DISGUSTING group of PIGS rolling around in SLOP together, planning the takeover of America and the theft of Americans’ votes? It must have been heaven, literally, when Pelosi and Obama locked eyes. They’re both haters, cheaters, thieves, malcontents, and couldn’t care less about anyone but themselves. Soul mates.
Here we are today…Caucus Fraud, media bias, sexism, bigotry, reverse racism, lies, stolen votes, ACORN, you name it. Whew. Every time I talk about it I need some Clorox and a wire brush to scrub the Obama and DNC FILTH off my body. It never seems to go away though, no matter how hard I scrub.
What a sad day for America, and worse days to come. Look back at what we have been dragged through, and ask yourself if people remaining in the Democratic Party don’t need major psychiatric care.
This “Lest we Forget Series” could go on for a very long time. We will NEVER forget!
I think about the caucus fraud Obama perpetrated during the primaries at least once a day, Dr. Long. It keeps my fire burning.
Oh, dang…the memories of my first,and last, caucus participation as a Dem.
Let’s see…Obamabots shouting at me to not sit on “their” side of the room even though there’s no sign indicating that to be the case…seniors supporting were fainting due to the small stuffy room…and the biggest thrill of all was hearing a teary-eyed sixty year old lady and her friends tell me at my State Caucus that young male O-thugs heckled “can you b*tches handle it, stupid c*nts”. I will NEVER forget and NEVER forgive the Democratic leaders (yeah, Mao tse Dean, I’m talking to you) for not saying a damn thing about the kind of crap that went on.
Last July, when I was fortunate to discover Dr. Long’s excellent Report on the Democrat Party “Caucus Fraud” (a.k.a. dirty tricks taken to a whole new level) and also saw the preview for the film “We Will Not Be Silenced;” I knew I could NEVER support the fraud that is now the POTUS.
It was clear that the Dem. party leadership were absolutely corrupt and that the best candidate (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) was to be summarily dismissed by a bunch of sexist jerks. IMHO, there is no doubt that the person sworn in as POTUS today was not the most qualified individual for the job.
I am grateful to HRC that she is such an incredible patriot that she put aside all that was done to her and took on the position of SOS. Hillary knows better then anyone how badly we need her now.
Dr. Lynette Long is also a great patriot and I have no doubt that her health issues are related to the courageous journey that she embarked on both for Hillary and then on behalf of Senator McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin.
May Dr. Long be surrounded by healing love and light and be able to return soon to lead and assist in the work ahead. Right now, however Dr. Long certainly deserves a much needed healing rest – though she is most sorely missed.
It is now January 21st and the coronation has come and gone. As many others have commented, I too could not bring myself to watch today’s events. With the constant barrage from all media sources; I did catch some of the BHO worshiping (it was almost impossible to blot it all out). I wondered what some of the other 57+ million people who DID NOT vote for THE ONE were thinking.
Thanks to all at “No Quarter” for the sanity provided to the many that refuse to believe the lies no matter how sweet sounding the words.
Namaste and TRUE peace, justice and prosperity to ALL at No Quarter!!
I’m glad you re-posted this. As a latecomer to No Quarter as the general election went bonkers, I heard passing reference to these events, but it’s informative to look at the details of the people who were there to piece together what happened now. I’ll be sure to look up the report you mention as well.
It’s probably a good thing you didn’t watch it yesterday. I thought I could handle it, but some of the commentary, particularly some vile anti-Bush stuff that went way off the charts that I’d rather not discuss in detail in a public forum, put me back to my ranting phase. My friends probably are sick of it, but oh, well.
Dr. Long, understanding your mathematical analysis of the Democratic caucus/primary contest is critical to understanding that HRC won the Democratic nomination according to DNC rules, notwithstanding BO was named the Party nominee. You have played a seminal role in exposing the endemic fraud that has foisted on us this poseur ‘President.’ Thank you so much.
I wish you the best of health.
It is important that this be documented for history. The books are already being re-written, the facts being scrubbed – ungoogled, and the public once again has fallen for American Idol. These are the same dimwits that voted for 2 terms of George Bush. Something I’d like to point out is the use of the churches. Bush and the Republicans did it. Obama did it too. It started with his Gospel Tour, then his Faith Tour and finally, the inauguration filled with Christian preachers from the beginning to the end. When are we going to be able to get religion out of government?
This IS being documented for history. In a big way. No one will ever, ever forget this. And those who lie about it, like the Obots, or deny it, or had no idea it happened, will ALL know the truth soon. No worries there.
I hope you are right. However, even former Hillary supporters who ended up voting for BO think this is conspiracy theory and prefer to stay in la la land.
I know women from the Hillary camp who were the FIRST people to scream FRAUD, and then magically drank the Obama vomit drink. Yes, they are out there. There are also just too many people who will never forget, will never stop the pursuit of truth, and Obama will pay for it.
Thank you Lynette.
Dr. Long’s thesis was that the caucus system would not produce the strongest candidate for the democratic party. She erroneously predicted that this would lead to a Republican victory in the general election. The results of the elections have proven the opposite to be true. Dr. Long’s fallacy is summarized by her closing admonistion:
“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.”
In the heat of the primary process, attacks against Obama were couched in terms of his electability.
It was claimed that the traditional electoral map would not change, that caucuses overvalued states that were not really in play, and that the traditional battleground states would decide the election. This was argued as a reason to nominate Clintonon, since only she, it was claimed, could win the battleground states like PA, OH, MI and FL.
The results of the actual election disprove Dr. Long’s thesis. Obama won several “deep red” caucus states, and was sufficiently competitive in the rest to force McCain to expend resources protecting them. Obama also won the traditional battleground states, and some traditionally Republican states as well, to wit: Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia.
Contrary to Dr. Long’s erroneous prediction, the lesson of the general election is that voter entusiasm and orginization, the ingredients of caucus success, can expand the electoral map, and lead to a broad general election victory.
This election proves the virtues of the caucus system, and will ensure that they remain a part of the Democratic primary process into the foreseeable future.
Wow, I wonder how you’d feel if Hillary had gamed the caucuses like Barky. You’d be screaming holy hell. But hey, who gives a flying fig about the will of the people as long as your side wins. Might makes right…right?
“voter entusiasm and orginization” …. really?
You mean, students voting in two states?
You mean, people in GA and FL voting in two states?
Or TN and FL?
You mean, the register and vote on election day, without ID in OH…
…that “orginization”?
Take away the caucus delegates he got in Texas and he wouldn’t have been able to claim victory at the convention, seeing as after he shut down MI/FL, there were only 4 votes up for grabs.
Fraud is not a synonym for Organization.
The point is that the process was successful. It achieved its objective which is to nominate a victorious Democratic candidate. This debunks Dr. Long’s thesis, that the caucus system would produce an unviable Democratic candidate.
Allegations of fraud are, and will remain, claims without factual support. Some will cling to this belief, but it will always be unsubstantiated, and should not influence the Democratic party’s primary procedure.
Like I said, you only say this because your guy is in office. If it was your grandmother being pushed around at a caucus, you’d blow a gasket. Well, maybe not. Obama supporters seem to show a rather frightening lack of empathy.
Not factual? Hey J, I SAW fraud in Texas with my own two eyes. I don’t need your kool aid to tell me what did or didn’t happen. I saw underage teens fill out their caucus forms and nobody checked because the caucus chair was an Obama supporter. I wasn’t allowed to get promoted from backup delegate to full delegate because my county caucus chair (the same guy) was an Obama supporter. I saw Obama supporters come over to the Clinton table, but then didn’t want to be a delegate…and those that did, never showed because they had phone calls from purported Obama folk saying the caucus was cancelled that morning.
So the “ends” justifies the means? At any cost?
So installing Obama, at any cost is worth it? Sacrificing our principles is worth it?
You make me sick.
The point is that the process was successful.
No, the END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. It was purely anti-democratic. Do you understand one person, one vote? Do you know anything about the doctrine of Fair Reflection. It is the FOUNDATION of the democratic process, and the Democratic Party. It was blatantly violated.
BTW: this is EXACTLY how the Republicans a la Rove justified their corrupt behavior. Congratulations.
Your grievance concerning “one person, one vote” is more applicable to general elections than primaries. Political parties are free to use any procedure they choose to select their candidate.
That is why the Democratic party was within its rights to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates.
Political parties use primary events to select the strongest candidate and build party support. Dr. Long did not argue that the procedure was corrupt, she claimed that it would be inefective. It is an interesting political point that she was proven wrong.
Caucusing in traditionally red states made the Party stronger and yielded a candidate that won states that no Democrat has carried in several decades.
And I am free to tell the like of the DNC and you where can park those porcedures. That is why I left the former Democratic party after 32 years as a member, as did a number of people that I know. The gaming the caucus system in the last election cycle was not a very democratic way of doing things, so maybe they should change their name to the Caucus party or Obamacratic party, or perhaps even better, the Autocratic Party because Democratic is indeed a misnomer.
Yes, you are, though it seems somewhat petulant and passive agressive.
Not agreeing and wanting a change is petulant and passive aggressive? Well.. you better hide from that group that followed the meme about change…
just sayin.
Abandoing the Democratic pary after 32 years because it did not nominate the candidate you wanted is petulant and passive agressive.
Choosing to become a Republican because that party supports your political values is not.
Only you can know the reason for your choice.
You brain must be so dense, not even thought has the possibility of escape.
I left because they gamed the system. I wouldn’t care if it was for That One or Biden or HRC or any candidate. Gaming is gaming and sidetracks the democratic process. Simply because you cherry pick your ethical standards does not mean anyone else need so do.
Who said I became a Republican, bot? I am an independent now. You make a lot of baseless assumptions, false generalizations, and poor pychological assessments.
Irrespective of your doctorate in manure crockery, Dr. Know-it-all, I am neither passive nor agressive nor petulant. I called the DNC’s bluff and left the party. They didn’t think anyone would be upset at a gamed system. I know they don’t care but at some point in the future they may.
I find your posts to be naive and filled with prepackaged, prefabricated talking points which were probably given you as a PowerPoint presentation at your last vist to Camp Obamabot. Your inability to see beyond the mass hysteria surrounding the Anointed One is not to your credit.
I have not cited any talking points or even offered explicit praise of Barack Obama. I read the post and found that its central thesis was disproved by the results of the general election. Dr. Long’s piece is unemotional, relying entirely on statistics to predict that Obama would be an unsuccessful Democratic candidate. My comments have also been unemotional and confined to examining Dr. Long’s thesis in light of the election results. It is an interesting point of conversation for people interested in politics and the process by which the Democratic Party selects a nominee. I maintain that this election vindicates the caucus system.
The hysterical rancor was introduced by comments in response to my observations.
Oh Jay, are you a new hard-liner for the Democratic Party?
If you are, thank god I saw the light and left.
Since you and your party no longer represent democracy, you have become an enemy of the country.
Wrap your azz, since you ain’t thinkin’ with your head, around that one.
Look, it’s Invincibly Ignorant Man–able to leap tall arguments with a single ad hominem abusive; spins faster than a quasar; and is more powerful than a coherent policy platform.
Disguised as the bad-mannered Jay, Invincibly Ignorant Man works for spin, paybacks, and the Obamatron way.
Murder also has a rate of success, yet that doesn’t make it right either.
You are talking like democracy is a computer model where you plug in the data and out pops a “model” candidate.
Conjured up passion can also get you a Hitler candidate that would fit nicely into a computer scenario. Pompous one line candidates who use others ideas to create an image, but can’t do a spontaneous one line oath of office, evokes no feelings of ability.
Fortunately, humans don’t think like computers and can make decisions without their help. Right here more people are spontaneously pinning their hopes for a better tomorrow on Senator Hillary Clinon’s ability to think, analyze, and react as Secretary of State than on the guy who just took a mangled oath of office to protect our Constitution.
And what that says is that gamed caucuses were wrong; more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Hussein Obama in the primaries because they believed in her ability to handle the difficult responsibilities of a president. Obama’s supporters treated the whole election process as some new kind of American Idol “winner” (cool, cute, cocky — oh, and great tan).
And the way the situation stands, Soertoro/Obama won’t be handling any “3:00 a.m. phone calls” because they will probably pass straight to Clinton.
The fact that some people are “pinning their hopes” of a better tomorrow on the Secretary of State is irrelevant to Dr. Long’s thesis, which was that the caucus process would produce an unelectable Democratic candidate. Dr. Long claimed caucuses had disproportionate influence during the primary process and that this prejudiced the Democratic party by promoting an unelectable Democrat. This thesis has been disproven.
Dr. Long’s analysis focused on the procedure of the primary, not the relative merits of the candidates. She did not claim that Obama was unqualified or dishonest, she argued that the procedure overstated his electability, and she was proven wrong by the actual election.
I was interested in this post because it was political/statistical in nature, not simply an anti Obama rant. Dr. Long challenged the use of caucuses in predicting successful presidential candidates, and this election contradicted her claim. I do not read or comment on posts that simply slam the 44th President, since I am certain that one who believes that Hillary was cheated cannot be convinced otherwise.
Yea, facts are stubborn things. Too bad you are not bothered by those silly Constitutional issues.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Obot. No one could have predicted the economic meltdown that occurred around Sept 15th . Mccain was leading before that happened. Too, had it not been for Hillary begging her voters to vote for Obama (many of which responded to her plea), John Mccain would be the POTUS. Any objective person would have to concede those points. Oops forgot you are an Obot.
The economy polled as the top issue of the election since late 2007. So the fact that an economic issue framed the closing days of the election was not unforeseeable. The degree of the crisis, and the fact that Obama responded to it with cool confidence helped his campaign, but doesn’t that mean that he was simply the better of the two candidates? Also, McCain’s numbers started to decline on 9/12, the day after Palin’s Charlie Gibson interview. The numbers continued down from that day on.
Yes, Hillary Clinton campaigned vigorously for Obama, and why wouldn’t she? She knew that Obama held similar policy positions to herself, and she valued the issues of her campaign and the Democratic party. The same cannot be said for a few of her supporters.
All of this is beside the point of Dr. Long’s commentary. She hypothesized that Obama would lose if nominated because the Caucus system overstated his national support.
Hey, Jay!
Where’s the birth certificate for Barack?
Where are the university records for Barack?
Where are the medical records for Barack?
How do you know he is who he says he is?
I’ve put your name on the list for apologies to be given when Barack turns out to be not who he says he is.
Wow. Amazing how BO supporters can justify anything. Their powers of denial and rationalization are truly limitless. What part of FRAUD do you not understand?! And FYI: he outspent his opponents 2-5:1 (most from Wall St. $), had the relentless bias of the media promoting and covering for him, and was following the worst Republican Admin. in American history, and STILL, the only reason he won was because the conservatives stayed home because McCain was too moderate. Or are you completely factually challenged? I’m sure you’ll find a way to spin out of that too. Delusion is a dangerous game.
Particularly when the walls come crashing down, and the obots are looking for “help” to feed themselves and keep a roof over their head; when they eat that magical food and live in that magical house, the food will taste like
sawdust , and the house will have walls of cardboard. Please, for your own sake, wake up o supporters! As I am not fit enough to have a discussion with, and am a mere woman, I am sure you would not want food I may share, nor shelter, should I offer. My house and food are paid for, made tangible by the reality of hard work.
There is no way to speak to Jay’s idiotic thesis on caucuses. It was a direct violation of human rights. The thuggery, threats of violence and bodily harm, are actually CRIMINAL and many criminal complaints were filed, beyond the thousands of complaints to the DNC. The ONLY reason these CRIMINALS got away with it is that caucus fraud is regulated by the party itself…i.e., the DNC had the responsibility and authority to stop it and punish those involved. Guess what? That was like the frigging RAT GUARDING THE CHEESE. The DNC COMMITTED the FRAUD. So, in essence, the voters who reported hit had no redress for their grievances as they were reporting to the VERY SAME PEOPLE who violated their rights in the first place.
It’s amazing how stupid the Obama voters are. “Winning by any means” no matter how vile, corrupt, illegal those means are and no matter how much the Obamas and the DNC just pissed on and destroyed what democracy we had left. What a JOKE this whole thing is.
Trust me, they will ALL pay for it.
All of the denial from Obots who couldn’t get out of bed after the whining and ranting that in 2000 and 2004 Bush cheated. LMFAO. One thing I have learned in the past two years…the Democrats are welcome to destroy America, but if Joe the Plumber doesn’t pay his taxes the GOP is a bunch of scum and all hell breaks loose.
I can’t wait to see the memorial service for the Democratic Party in 2010. I’ll bring the lilies.
Jay, under normal circumstances, Dr. Long would have probably been right about a republican victory. She did not give enough weight to Bush’s lowest-in-history popularity (due to the war, the economy, and the republicans just giving up because they were convinced it was unwinnable for them.)
But the biggest deciding factors in this election began the middle of Sept with the devastating stock market losses day in and day out, the financial markets going under day in and day out, and the bailouts for the auto industry, with more brewing on the horizon.
At that point, Mickey Mouse would have beat any republican. So stop making a case for fraud calling it organization when he would never have been able to win those “red” states under more normal circumstances. He barely won those battleground states by 1 & 2 points after the millions spent. The only thing the caucuses did and it was huge – it gave a false sense of things and made AA’s and the left wing think he could win. This gave him momentum. BO was the luckiest human alive, or was he?
Thank you Dr. Long for this reminder. I have made a personal decision to keep my energies focused on things that will restore democracy from the ground up, with women as the central focus needing change, so my question on the caucus issue is this: With BO holding a lot of power right now, and probably trying to solidify it for as far into the future as possible, what is the best way to go about doing something about the caucus factor? Is there room inside the DNC for democracy? What is the thinking here?
Thank you Lynette! Most people do not know anything about the voter manipulation and suppression. They cannot understand why “everyone isn’t on board.” Even people on this site are starting to push the “let’s see what he does and all move forward.” No. Not for me. He is as illegitimate as George Bush was after stealing Florida in 2000. You cannot justify the means with the end. You cannot violate our most fundamental democratic process–one person, one vote–and then claim legitimate authority. And it’s not something to “get over.” Should we “get over” the Constitution?
And you do not even discuss here the thousands of documented cases of people being bused into the caucuses from out of state and being extremely intimidating to other voters, stealing ballots, and changing delegate counts.
Dr. Long–please understand that many of us are still counting on you. It was your work and your voice that kept me feeling that there was some sanity still existent in this world during the primaries.
My prayers are with you as you fight this medical thing, whatever it is. I’m sending “good vibrations.”
The spam filter just ate three of my posts. I don’t have time to post repeatedly. Maybe I’m blocked. If not, please investigate, because I am going to stop posting here if it happens again.
I see it made it through eventually. Ignore the spam post, there must be some delay with moderating. I have noticed that it happens quite often now though–not sure why.
Nothing personal, fif. The Spam Filter works in mysterious ways. It has to, or the spammers would figure it out and it wouldn’t work at all. It’s not NQ’s fault.
Thank you Lynette, for the brilliant work you did during this campaign to expose the fraud and intimidation perpetrated by the Obama camp. We have all written volumes on this but your work stands alone as the authority on the heinous corruption that has compromised our political system, perhaps irrevocably. For that alone, we owe you a tremendous debt. I send you healing energies daily and hope for your speedy recovery. I wish I could have that same hope for our poor nation as it struggles under the weight of what amounts to little more than a coup, and not altogether bloodless at that. It is only through the continued efforts of brave and brilliant patriots that we can hope to one day reclaim our republic.
Thank you, Susan, for reposting Dr.Long’s “Lest we forget” report series. The election might be over, but we, the readers of this site and other like-minded citizens would have spent the last several months in vain, if we forget about the root causes for the unfair primary election process that unfairly robbed Hillary of a chance to be a qualified and the first woman president.
Let us keep up our pressure on the system and DNC leadership to remedy the flaws of the system, as well as their activities to ensure a fair and balanced process so that only the most qualified candidate is chosen to represent the party and the people.
We appreciate the contributions of Dr, Long and hope for her continued leadership in this effort.
I hope the states that have that foolish system, get their act together; as well as an overhaul to the process the DNC uses; it is not equal representation in the primaries, with some states, caucusing and some not.
I keep sending people to Dr. Long’s site, and now only to find that none of us can get onto it. Where should I send people to get information on the scams known as the Dem caucuses (I experienced mine in Nevada, so I KNOW that the cheating really occurred).
Help! Please e-mail desertedit@cox.net with info as to how to access the site. Thank you!