Study Shows Obama Would Have Won Primaries in Caucus States!!!

[mckeown1128]

A new study by Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party author Glenn Hurowitz casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.

The study projects that 4.1 million additional people would likely have voted in caucus states had primaries been held in those states instead - because of the vastly higher participation rates in primaries.

"Using popular vote numbers to claim victory in this process means dismissing the popular will of the voters in 13 states that had caucuses," Hurowitz said. "Given the bizarro hodgepodge of systems in use, the popular vote doesn't represent the popular will."

The study also estimates that, in a true popular vote system where all states held primaries, Obama's popular vote lead would have increased from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, because voters in caucus states would have slightly favored Obama based on demographic projections.

http://www.dcourage.com/a/2008/04/new_study_shows_obama_would_ha.php



kick and rec folks so we can put this argument to rest for good.

[AX10]

1. We don't know how the people would have voted.

People vote differently in actual primaries.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Then drop the argument that Hillary is close.

Bottom line is, Barack is ahead in the popular vote - even though many of the primaries he won were based only on much lower caucus votes.

Can't have it both ways.

[newmajority]

9. Especially in states where DLC hacks control the voting machines.

Just ask Ted Strickland. I heard he kept all of Uncle Tom Blackwell's software for himself. And sent copies to Ed Rendell. :evilgrin:

[Symarip]

3. I heard this earlier on TV

Thanks for finding it. I tried finding it on the interwebs and couldn't. K & R.

[mckeown1128]

4. kickypoo nt

[BlueIdaho]

5. Damn it! Another inconvenient truth! nt.

[ORDem]

14. Precisely why we have delegates. They properly weight the caucus votes.

The HRC meme about pop. vote is BS.

[jackson_dem]

6. His delegate lead comes from sham caucuses with 2-5% turnout

The fact is we don't know how people would have voted if there was 25-40% turnout like there is in real votes. He still probably would have won but he would be trailing in the delegate count without 79% wins with 2% turnout.

[roguevalley]

7. sham caucuses? irrelevant states? bullshit. he got sold wins and

he will harm her 'momentum' irretrievably in Penn. I find the complaining about caucuses disgusting. Hillary agreed to the rules when she entered this thing. Now you diss entire states. I can't wait for her to lose. I didn't feel like this before the caucus bitching but now I am living for the day.

[mckeown1128]

8. is that the new Clintonian talking point...

calling the caucuses "shams".. all of you seem to be spouting that BS. No one including Hillary ever had ANY problem with caucuses until Hillary started losing.

[eridani]

10. Were they "shams" in 1992 and 1996? n/t

[mckeown1128]

12. Of course not... they are only shams if a person doesn't...

like the result.

[PseudoIntellect]

11. Apparently, caucuses are no longer called caucuses.

They are called sham caucuses, instead. Because they're all fake. All of them. (oh, except Nevada)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYBxAVDQaF0

^^^^^^Clinton advertises for caucus support. How dare she rally for support in FAKE (sham) elections!^^^^^^

[liberaldem4ever]

13. K & R

[Barack_America]

15. Wharton folks have been surprisingly supportive of Obama.

Another example of whodathunkit courtesy of Primary Season 2008.

[StevieM]

16. A blatant lie--Obama wouldn't have gotten 79% of the vote in an Idaho primary (eom)