Hillary +12 delegates in PA, Obama +143 delegates in sham undemocratic caucuses

[NJSecularist]

Let's look at the delegate margins Obama has assembled in the caucus format.

Wyoming Caucus - +2 Obama
Texas Caucus - +9 Obama
Hawaii Caucus - +8 Obama
Maine Caucus - +6 Obama
Washington Caucus - +26 Obama
Nebraska Caucus - +8 Obama
North Dakota Caucus - +3 Obama
Minnesota Caucus - +24 Obama
Kansas Caucus - +14 Obama
Idaho Caucus - +12 Obama
Colorado Caucus +15 Obama
American Somoa Caucus - -1 Obama
Alaska Caucus - +5 Obma
Nevada Caucus - +1 Obama
Iowa Caucus - +11 Obama

From that list, we can determine that Obama has gained 143 more delegates from the caucus format than Hillary. The final delegate count for Pennsylvania is still being counted, but let's for the sake of argument say she came out of Pennsylvania
with a +12 delegates over Obama, which seems like a likely middle ground for what will happen..

Now, let's evaluate the final voter data in Pennsylvania, based on yesterday's primary:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA
Clinton: 1,260,208 votes
Obama: 1,045,444 votes.

2,305,652 voters in PA showed up at the polls to vote in the Democratic primary. Hillary received 214,764 more voters than Obama in Pennsylvania.

As I said above, let's assume Hillary won 12 delegates. Now let's see how many votes Hillary earned per delegate. She received 214,764 more votes and she received 12 more delegates. Using that calculation, for every 17897 additional votes she receieved, she received an additional delegate more than Obama.

--------------------------------------

Now let's look over the data in the caucuses:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/popular-vote-estimates-includi-1.php
Obama 754,959
Clinton 453,649

1,208,608 estimated voters total have showed up at 15 caucuses. That is a little more than half of how many voters showed up at one primary, in Pennsylvania!

Yet Obama receives +143 more delegates than Hillary due to the caucus format. Let's do the math. Let's look at how many more voters Obama has received in the caucuses. 301310 more voters have voted for Obama than Hillary in these caucuses. And Obama has earned 143 additional delegates from those 301,310 additional voters. Using these calculations, for every 2107 additional voters Obama received in these caucuses, he received an additional delegate.

Now, let's recap:
Hillary in Pennsylvania: She earned an additional delegate every 17897 voters.
Obama in caucuses: He earned an additional delegate every 2107 voters.

If you need any more examples of how undemocratic caucuses actually are, here it is. Those who are arguing in favor of Obama's “significant” pledged delegate lead typically say that if Obama wasn't chosen as the nominee, then democracy would be subverted. Yet as shown above, caucuses are the very example of an undemocratic election and Obama has benefited extensively from them.

Now, let's look at turnout rates in which Obama received all these delegates from the caucus format, and let's compare them to Pennsylvania, where Hillary only received 12 additional delegates.

Iowa - 16%
Nevada - 10%
Alaska - 5%
Colorado - 6%
Idaho - 2%
Kansas - 2%
Minnesota - 7%
North Dakota - 6%
Nebraska - 3%
Maine - 5%
Wyoming - 3%

You average these all together, and you get a 6% turnout rate. Now, let's look at Pennsylvania's turnout rate.

Pennsylvania – 39%

Obama recieves an additional delegate per 2107 voters in 6% turnout races, while Hillary receive an additional delegate per 17897 voters in a 39% turnout race. Obama has padded his pledged delegate lead in very undemocratic ways, and for Obama supporters to say that Hillary would be subverting democracy if she won the nomination when Obama's entire lead is built on sham undemocratic caucuses - is laughable and ironic.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. K&R

[Fox Mulder]

2. Give it up already.

If Hillary had won those caucuses, I bet you wouldn't be sitting here complaining about it, would you?

[SoFlaJet]

55. no Fox because NJS

was one of the most fervent anti-Clinton pro-Obama people in GD-P...you know up until like yesterday

[bobbert]

275. This is the same guy that said FL was democratic, probably thinks MI was too

but caucuses aren't?

[indimuse]

308. REAL Democreats are fighters!They DON"T give up!

Be careful Obamacan, your truer self is showing...

" border=0 alt="Banner generated at Pimp-My-Profile.com"></a>

[PoliticalAmazon]

310. "Real Democrats" don't use Bush/Rlove tactics and steal votes. n/t

[ORDem]

314. And Hillary had just as much chance to win them as Obama, she knew they were caucus

states beforehand. It's so ironic, because she argues that the SDs know her "up close" so they are better qualified, but these so-called "activists" are paying attention too (maybe more so than the SDs) so why doesn't their experience count more than regular voters, who she's dissed many times? Simple: because they didn't fuckin' vote for her! Ergo, they must be idiots and don't count. If she wasn't making such an embarrassing fool of herself, this would be laughable.

:eyes:

[yourout]

3. You just got caucused to my ignore list.

[BootinUp]

9. hilarious. DONT SHOW ME FACTS!!!! lol

[Capn Sunshine]

52. How are these facts?

the basic supposition is caucuses don't matter. It goes downhill from there.
WHY would anyone try to intentionally disregard the rules of our primary system?

Oh, right.

[BootinUp]

57. There is no need to put words in the authors mouth so to speak

its a well written post. Perhaps if you cited the specific claims you disagree with?

[jackson_dem]

63. The basic supposition is all votes should count equally. There's a revolutionarly idea!

[jefferson_dem]

191. They do. Was anyone denied the right to caucus if they wanted.

Every caucusers vote counts as much as the others.

This is a really lame argument...and you know it.

[dionysus]

219. they get pwned time and time again on facts, then post smiley's like they are clever...

it's funny to watch, yet frustrating at the same time...

[jefferson_dem]

223. Sorry.

Mis-post.

[dionysus]

262. did you cuss at me thinking i was one of them or something?

;)

[jefferson_dem]

267. Nah. I just posted to you instead of as a message at the bottom-of-thread.

:).

While I got you, may I ask if you used to hang out in the Delphi political forums...way back in the day (2000 election)? I recall the name but maybe it was someone else.

[PseudoIntellect]

306. Then scratch superdelegates and caucuses.

But right now, playing by the rules, we have both. Everyone knew the rules, and they're both fair game.

[jackson_dem]

54. LOL and then they wonder why they are called a cult!

:rofl:

[demwing]

98. Not facts - Spin

"Sham undemocratic caucuses"?

That's spin alley. Spinapalooza. Spinach Salad. Spinakopita. Spincinatti. Spin off. Spin cycle. Sp-sp-sp Spinny and the jets

[BootinUp]

120. Some of both,

But it is hard to argue against the basic premise that the caucus sytem and pledged delegate system is largely not a one man one vote system, or maybe you will try?

[cali]

115. have some actual facts:

Caucuses are part of DNC sanctioned dem primary process.

Hilly never expressed concerns about caucuses being unfair until she started losing the.

Hillary knew the rules of the game.

Hillary put little effort into caucus states.

[BootinUp]

130. Not making the argument before never means it can't be made now

in politics. Obama would agree.

[cali]

139. she blew it. she thought she was the inevitable nominee and

she just didn't bother. Sucks for her.

[BootinUp]

143. Would it surprise you if I said

I disagreed with your take on the race thus far?

[cali]

144. nope. I follow your posts pretty closely

:hi:

[Zodiak]

312. LOL!

good one

[nebula]

4. They only whine about it when they're losing

when they're winning, then all the sudden caucuses are the greatest thing since sliced bread!

[PetraPooh]

5. My recommendation . . .

LET IT SINK!

[jackson_dem]

68. Another Obamite running from inconvenient truths

[davidpdx]

6. Wow and the same sham was good enough to get Bill the nomination

It only became a sham when Hillary lost. Where was the outrage a year ago when she was the presumptive front runner?

[myrna minx]

31. No kidding. My "sham" caucus has been going on in Minnesota,

one of those little states that doesn't matter to Clinton, since the 1950's. I'm not saying that there aren't issues with the caucus system, but it's ridiculous to whine and complain about it after the fact, when these "ready on day one" folks have been in the political process for 40 years. :eyes: In addition, the Presidential candidate votes were done as a whole "primary" system: people were able to come in and vote for their Presidential choice and not stay for the caucus, so this is just bunk.

[Hansel]

179. Yep, Minnesota uses a primary system for presidential contests.

We only hold caucuses for senate and congressional contests.

I find these kinds of arguments offensive. Clinton knew the rules, played by them, and lost. End of story. Minnesota is simply Obama country. In fact it is way more Obama country than New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida are Clinton country. The idea that people who come from smaller or caucus states aren't important is an idiotic, self-defeating argument for a candidate running for national office.

Keep in mind that there is a good chance that our Governor will be McCain's running mate. If this is the case, and the SDs hand her the nomination, it's almost guaranteed that McCain will take Minnesota. Because 1) this is huge Obama country and there's not much enthusiasm for her here in the 1st place, 2) she has insulted the voters of this state over and over again during this primary, and 3) for reasons I can't explain, the governor has a fairly high approval rating (even with a bridge falling down on his watch). I think he sucks, but that's beside the point. If he is McCain's running mate, the only chance the Democrats have of winning Minnesota is for Obama to be the nominee. And you can take that to the bank. That's going to hurt because Minnesota always votes Dem on the presidential level.

Oh, BTW, hi fellow Minnesotan. I've been lurking on this board daily for over 5 years now so I'm not exactly a newbie. I'm just a new poster.

[myrna minx]

210. Welcome to the fray, friend and neighbor.

:hi: I agree with everything that you have written. I, too, am astonished that Tim Pawlenty has such freakish approval ratings, considering how our wonderful state is suffering from all of the cut backs that he has wrought, and corruption from the likes of Carol Molnau, but our state is strange that way, isn't it.

Check out our Minnesota nook on DU and say hi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=160

[Hansel]

232. Thank you!

Yeah, she's a peach. I heard on one of the local Air America shows that the guy who's replacing her is actually qualified. They were baffled by why Tim appointed someone who can actually do the job. I think it has to do with him running for VP. This is his insulation from criticism. I know that KO is planning on going after the bridge story big time during the convention. He has already mentioned it a couple of times.

Thanks for the welcome and invite. I'll have to pop over there sometime.

[DerekJ]

7. YET, without the caucuses, he is till wining the popular vote.

So what's your point?!!

[NJSecularist]

12. Hillary still has a bunch of favorable primaries coming up. n/t

[DerekJ]

22. Show me a probable scenario where she can win the popular vote. Wait, as a sign of my good heart

I’ll let you add Florida :)

Edit: typo

[NJSecularist]

26. With Florida, she'll easily win the popular vote.

If she wins Indiana and she keeps her loss in North Carolina to less than 15 points.

[Yurovsky]

37. And don't forget Michigan, where she squeaked by "none of the above"

you Hillbots would be funny if it weren't for the fact that her little ego trip may end up putting gramps in the White House and lead to yet another war, this time with Iran. Oh wait, SHE'S the one who wants to nuke Iran. My bad.

[DerekJ]

47. Let's count. Show me the numbers. :)

[jackson_dem]

72. See for yourself

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html

[DerekJ]

108. LOOOL

Puerto Rico Open N/A N/A 1,000,000 25.0% 250,000

RIGGGHHHHHTTTTTTT :)

So you INCLUDE Florida, and EXECLUDE caucuses (WTF?!!) , and she gets 12K more votes!!

ASSUMING 1 MILLION TURN OUT IN PR, and she wins PR by 25% (IN YOUR DREAMS) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LOL LOL LOL

Thanks for proving me right.

[jackson_dem]

118. You didn't read it

You can create your own scenario based on how you predict the upcoming states will go (the linked one is the default). Then at the bottom there are various ways to calculate the popular vote.

Caucuses are included.The "caucus estimates" are for only 3-4 of the 15 or so caucus states. Read the rest of it. Every scenario a superdelegate could look at is included.

[DerekJ]

147. I read it !!! I understand that those are your own estimates.

First they're fucked up estimates sorry. Second, her best scenario in the estimates is:

Exclude MI. Include FL and Caucus Estimates. Use WA Primary. 28,426,900 482,088 46,867

HE STILL WINS by 46K

Even if you exclude caucus estimates (Which is fucked up by all measures, if you're talking about popular vote), SHE WINS BY 12K!!!

This means, if Obama got 1.2% more in PR he wins the popular vote.

It's insanely impossible to happen, plausible maybe, probable FAR from it, and probably ONLY if you include FL and exclude caucuses.

:WTF:

[jackson_dem]

161. Those aren't my estimates

They are the default.

Caucus estimates only bring Obama about 100k votes because they apply to only four states and since caucuses have low turnout there aren't many votes to be had in them.

I did a scenario just now under which she nets 300k votes in the remaining states. She is down by about 300k now including Florida and the caucus estimates (along with the caucus popular votes for the 10-11 caucuses that report the popular vote). Then there is the Michigan question that has to be addressed. She beat uncommitted (Obama plus Edwards) by 300k. That doesn't matter?

[DerekJ]

199. I don't care if you made the estimates or not, and sure, I can make her win the popular votes by 2

million votes, and it will still be plausible. Probable?!! HELL NO. Not a chance in hell. Her chances of wining the popular vote are almost as good as her chance of winning the PDs.


I see now, you saw that there is no probable scenario for her to win the popular vote, without including MI.

I'll concede, Hillary should win against "uncommitted". Goodness. Imagine if you know your candidate is not even on the ballot. Would you go?!! And if you do how many didn't?!! Many Obama supporters didn’t go.

How can you count the popular vote be any f'n fair measure then?!!

[jackson_dem]

240. Let's count all the votes and see what happens. If she loses IN all of this is moot

[DerekJ]

248. Absolutely. I'm all for her staying in the race. I'm not asking for her to drop out. On the

contrary, I want her to continue for 4 reasons:

Her supporters has to see her losing fair and square (will help heal the wounds),

It's helping energize the democratic base (higher GE turnout for the DP),

The race is helping the DP turn some states to their favor (Check Rasmussen for PA head to head matchups today, both Hillary and Obama are winning against McCain by some 7 or 8 points, when they were down by 7 or 8 points, some red states are even leaning towards DP now).

I think that the kitchen sink strategy is actually beneficial to Obama (get him vetted now instead of later). However, she has to tone down the rhetoric a bit and she has to put some energy in attacking McCain (make it easier to heal the wounds).



I call for her to stay. Just be reasonable with your expectations.

[Dawgs]

174. You couldn't be more wrong.

There is almost no scenario that she can win the popular vote(with Florida) after what happened in Pennsylvania.

[Lochloosa]

221. Sorry to burst your bubble but....

I voted for Edwards. I knew my vote would not COUNT. If I had known it would, Obama would have gotten that vote.

Move On. You have lost.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jackson_dem]

73. what will Warren Jeffs say about someone leaving the reservation?

[gabeana]

38. So does Obama

NC, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota
Hillary's are Kentucky, West Virginia, PR

Indiana is a toss up latest Survey USA Obama +5 but still too close to call
I have no idea about Guam

if I missed one let me know

[NJSecularist]

44. Obama has North Carolina and Oregon.

North Carolina is the largest. But then Hillary has a bunch of large contests like Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

[gabeana]

71. I think Indiana is a toss up n/t

[Hawkeye-X]

222. PR will be going to Obama. Sorry.

Most of the PR SD's already endorsed Obama.

[jackson_dem]

77. MT and SD are unclear, especially since Obama will likely go into them 2-5 in April/May

[gabeana]

117. Obama has a solid chance to win Indiana

so if he wins Indiana and NC do you think its over with for Clinton.
I'm not looking to start a war just asking for your opinion

[jackson_dem]

146. Yes

I just don't think he can win IN now. Clinton should get a bounce out of Pennsylvania and there are signs she will put most of her resources in IN and neglect NC. This is smart given the fact she would need either Obama's hold on the black vote to break for the first time in 43 states (very unlikely) or to win at least 70% of the white vote (unlikely) to win NC.

If she wins IN the following week comes WV. Take a look at how Obama performed in the PA and OH counties bordering WV for a preview of what lies ahead on 5/13...

[gabeana]

152. I disagree with you on IN

but thanks for your answer
by the way chuck todd just said on KO that if Obama just wins NC its over

[jackson_dem]

181. We will know soon about Indiana

If she doesn't get a bounce that is not a good sign because Obama's avalanche of ads are good for at least another 6-8 points, and that is being generous and assuming Clinton can blunt some of it by focusing almost exclusively on IN. In Ohio and Pennsylvania Obama's ad blitzes were good enough for about 10 points.

Todd apparently is an Obama supporter. The best way for the MSM and pro-Obama politicians to kick her out is to hide behind NC. Obama has won every state where the black share of the primary is above 30%. NC will be no different. If he gets 90% of the black vote as he will and she gets 65% of the white vote she loses 55-45 overall. The only way she can win is goosing her white vote up to the 70's. Obama's black support has not wavered in the first 43 states. There is no logical reason to think it will in NC so she has no realistic path to winning NC.

If she wins Indiana why would she quit? Here is a preview of West Virginia:

This is just to give us a flavor of what we can expect in West Virginia, the only state to vote during the week of 5/13. This will make a big Clinton win particularly important because the MSM would be forced to talk about it for a week, which would help her perhaps win Oregon and solidify a blowout in Kentucky on 5/20. Here is how OH and PA counties bordering West Virginia voted.

The number on the left is Clinton's vote %.

Ohio counties

72-23
71-23
71-26
53-45
77-20
78-19
78-19

Pennsylvania counties

70-30
71-29
75-25
79-21

No problem, btw. :hi:

[rodeodance]

204. Todd the Obama shrill has been dancing on Hillary's grave for months now.

[Hawkeye-X]

226. And yet you approve of her Iran comments yesterday that just about doomed

her campaign? Huh? I'm waiting... IN will be rejecting Clinton soundly in two weeks. I've got some pretty good information about Indiana that tells me otherwise - not the internals, but rather bits and pieces of info that has been sent my way.

Hawkeye-X

[SoxFan]

271. North Carolina?

Oregon?

Montana?

South Dakota?

[4_Legs_Good]

8. How totally unfair of him to play by the rules...

and win.

David

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. It's absolutely fair of him to play by the rules

And the rules also say that whoever wins a majority of all delegates, not just pledged delegates, wins the nomination. In States like Texas and Nevada Clinton got more votes and Obama got more delegates. In Washington State they had a caucus and a primary. Far more voters participated in the primary than the caucus but the caucus is how delegates got selected. Obama won both but the spread was much narrower in the Primary, had that margin determined the delegate selection Clinton would have won significantly more Washington delegates.

Yes it is all in the rules, but there are enough anti-Democratic flaws in the way the rules are set up that merely holding a small lead in pledged delelegates does not establish any popular will behind a candidate - it just makes him the favorite. I'll call that fair enough, but Obama is not yet the presumptive nominee. If he seriously underperforms from here on out the SD's would be right to give the nomination to Clinton. All Obama has to do to win now is not shift into reverse, but if he does start seriously lagging, he has no firm claim on the nomination.

[4_Legs_Good]

64. No disagreement here, just remember, though, that selecting a party nominee isn't democratic

nor does it have to be. It's a process whereby a party selects who it wants to run in an election. It's not an election in and of itself. There's no real reason why it should be democratic.

I don't disagree on the SDs, that's part of the game. I'm not a big fan, but them's the rules, so we go with it.

Agreed also that if he doesn't shift into reverse or get hit by a meteor, he'll likely win, but if he does either of those, he'll likely lose and has no right to claim the nomination.

I do hope, however, that SDs can see beyond a phoney backslide (ala Rev. Wright) vs. a real issue like admitting that he eats babies for breakfast and kittens for lunch, and at dinner plans how he can lose to McCain to guarantee us another Bush term in office.

David

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. A good exchange David, Thanks

We see this pretty much the same. It's clearly Obama's to lose right now, but he hasn't fully clinched it yet.

[evlbstrd]

10. And if HRC had won those caucuses?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

[NJSecularist]

13. It doesn't matter. It shows how undemocratic the system actually is. n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

21. Really? Obama won the caucuses AND primary in Washington state.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. The margin though was very different. He would have won fewer delegates using the Primary margin.

It would have been closer to what just happened to Clinton in PA; a significant win but a minor delegate pick up.

[jackson_dem]

84. He would have lost many of those states if everybody had equal access to voting

Look at Washington. He won the caucus 68-31 but the primary, which had more than twice the turnout, only 51-46. How many caucuses did he win by less than 37 points?

[NJSecularist]

125. His delegate lead would be virtually nothing if everybody had equal access to voting. n/t

[jackson_dem]

141. It would be only 64 if Florida and Michigan are enfranchised (and uncommitted is given to O)

There is a lot of talk about the delegate count but the elephant in the room is the FL/MI question. If they get in there is a whole new ballgame...There are also those 18-31, depending on whether FL is enfranchised, Edwards delegates.

As a side note, if the results are allowed as they stand, the delegate count would be a mere +9 for Obama with uncommitted taking 55. It is unfair to give Obama Edwards' votes too but it would be even more unfair to give him nothing. He should get the uncommitted vote for Michigan imo.

What scares Obama supporters and leads to their denial on this is the Fl/MI question may not be decided until the convention. These are the same people who hoped for a coronation on March 4 and then again just yesterday and now have May 6th designated as coronation day. You can imagine how disconcerting this would be for them.

[Liberal Veteran]

123. Actually, we don't know that because I caucused but didn't vote in the primary.

For the democrats, the primary was meaningless in Wa. State. and many of us didn't bother to vote in the primary because of that.

[NJSecularist]

126. The primary was meaningless, yet turnout was much bigger than in the caucus.

What does that say about the caucus system?

[Liberal Veteran]

138. Considering the majority of the state is "vote by mail"...not a lot.

Basically, you are just pissed that Hillary supporters are apparently less motivated to make their vote count and show up at a caucus, so perhaps they would be wise to trust the judgment of the people who found the process important enough to participate.

[NJSecularist]

140. Less motivated?

I doubt it has anything to do with motivation. Some people have commitments. They can't spent hours at a caucus.

[Liberal Veteran]

160. And your point would be that Obama supporters are likely lazy bums with no committments?

Perhaps we all "welfare queens"?

You sure you want to follow that line of reasoning to its (il)logical conclusion?

If, as you purport, there is an even divide across the board, what are you implying about Obama supporters that would make them more likely to show up at a caucus?

[NJSecularist]

169. When did I ever say that?

Fact: There is much lower turnout at caucuses than primaries.

[Liberal Veteran]

224. Duh. So maybe we caucus states prefer people to show motivation?

People who are motivated to show at caucuses are more likely to be halfway informed and care about the process. People who can't be bothered to make time for democracy are the kind of person more likely to vote for the person with the better hair or not vote for someone because of something they heard on a radio show while driving to work. And like it or not, that is majority of voters in this country. It's the reason why Iraq was easy to sell to America or why people will go out of their way to vote on idiocy like anti-gay laws ("Can't let them there queers get married!!!! I better vote this time!") and know absolutely NOTHING about the candidates.

So I kinda like caucuses. Let's face it, people here on DU are not really representative of the populace when it comes to politics. We give a damn about this country and our democracy. We make it a habit to be better informed. Other than the occasional troll and a couple of borderline personalities on the fringes, nobody on this board is likely to believe Obama is a Muslim, but we ALL know people who think he is. Those people are more likely to think of democracy as filling in one little circle every four years and it bores the hell out of them. So a caucus is an opportunity to get together with your neighbors that really care enough about issues pertaining to our government and have a frank and open discussion about the party and our country.

So essentially, you have people steering the process who feel motivated about politics enough to sit in that room together and talk to each other and shape our future and possibly disabuse people of notions that they may have had (Example, if someone in the caucus says 'I like both candidates, but I'm not sure America is ready for a Muslim president.' you get the opportunity to point that out.

Undemocratic? It's the soul of democracy. Everyone is welcome to attend and speak their peace and be counted.

[NJSecularist]

227. People who don't have time to caucus will vote in the general election.

You can't just throw their votes out.

[Liberal Veteran]

244. Nor do we. But caucuses go a long way to mitigating things like the republican noise machine.

Most don't make time for politics. That's a fact. In reality, the mitigating effect is part of our republic. Pure democracy doesn't exist. So there are people who are motivated enough to involve themselves in shaping the future of our country.

They are a good thing.

[thoughtcrime1984]

132. And knowing that the caucuses held the prize, and the Primaries didn't

does influence attendance. I'm not sure why Obama's supporters showed up much more enthusiastically than Clinton's. Maybe they thought it was on a different day.

[evlbstrd]

106. Waaaaaah!

[OzarkDem]

180. Good reason for SD's

to view the delegate counts with that in mind.

[breakaleg]

11. This is not the time or place to rewrite the caucus system to suit your wants. nt

[BootinUp]

15. This is an argument for

supporting her, not overturning caucus results.

[MattBaggins]

163. What?

If you are suggesting the SDs should give her the Nomination based on this argument then you are in fact asking to overturn the caucus results.

Look I fully support getting rid of caucuses and that they don't allow all people a chance to vote. I just find it a real slap in the face that Hillary followers decided now that they are so bad. When Hillary stood at that rally the night beofre the Texas vote and pretended to be all flabergasted that Texas had a two part system my jaw hit the floor. Her poutrage pretending that she had never heard of a caucus before was just so pathetic. She has had years of experience gaming the caucus system and is just pissed that a system designed for people like her was played better by the other candidate.

We need to fix the primary system, but this year it is what it is. Your candidate lost a game tilted in her favor. Deal with it and spare me the faux outrage.

[eridani]

303. That's crap. Absentee caucusing would allow everyone who wants to to participate

They do it that way in Maine, and there is no reason why other caucuses could not be run in a similar manner. The only thing you give up as an absentee is the option to change your mind if your first choice doesn't make it. All supporters of Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, et al. were disenfranchised by primaries.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. so Obama wins in elections where the vote totals are actually...counted and verified?

unlike the "secret" ballot of primaries, which is basically just - step into a booth and pray your vote is counted correctly.

[jackson_dem]

87. He wins when 80-95% of voters don't show up under the caucus method

[Obamanaut]

16. Step away from the computer. Go outside. Breathe in, then out. nt

[here_is_to_hope]

69. Worked for me and its good advice (that and Vicodin...) n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

17. I agree that caucuses are undemocratic.

We should do away with both them and superdelegates before 2012. But for this race, we'll stick to the rules both parties agreed to at the start.

[jackson_dem]

89. You and Obamites can but the superdelegates are free to factor this in

[guyanakoolaid]

208. They're also free to factor in whether they have a groin itch on the day they vote

...or the weather... or the I Ching

[jackson_dem]

238. Whatever you and Obama supporters here command they will surely do

[guyanakoolaid]

253. What sucks is

that we can't have an honest debate right now about the validity of superdelegates. We're all too invested in our chosen candidates to be able to talk about it rationally right now. But this conversation should take place after this election.

[jackson_dem]

270. Yup but I do agree we should scrap them, along with caucuses and proportional voting for 2012

[MadBadger]

18. You disappoint me.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. So, let me get this straight: Hillary supporters couldn't bother to show up at caucuses...

....so caucuses must be unfair?

What the fuck are you smoking?

[NJSecularist]

127. 6% turnout vs. 38% turnout - which is larger?

That is why caucuses are undemocratic.

[Liberal Veteran]

151. Again, what was it about Clinton supporters that kept them from showing up at the caucuses?

It is hardly undemocratic. Hell, there is no constitutional requirement for caucuses or primaries. It's how we made up the rules (that's the reason why Republicans have a "winner take all" and democrats are proportional system and why the republican primary is what counts in Wa. State, but the Democratic Caucus is what counts.

You can say, "I don't like caucuses" to your heart's content, but who the hell are you to decide how my state picks it's delegates?

[NJSecularist]

190. Caucuses require a lot of commitment.

In a primary, you can take 5 minutes out of your time and go to the polls and vote.

6% vs. 38% turnout. Which is bigger? Caucuses are indeed undemocratic.

[newmajority]

20. I never thought I would see the day when a "Democrat" defended electro-fraud machines

Caucuses are superior to ANY primary where votes are not verifiable. End of story.

[jackson_dem]

91. Look up what "Democrat" means. There is a reason we have a secret ballot for real elections

[SoFlaJet]

23. NJS

you were defending the same process a month and a half ago AS AN OBAMA SUPPORTER that you are now criticizing. You see how disingenuous that makes you look?

[NJSecularist]

30. I did some research. I changed my mind.

This caucus system is a fraud and every Obama supporter should realize that.

I'm not the first person to change my mind and I won't be the last.

[SoFlaJet]

46. whatever bro

so you kind of think we should change the way we elect our democratic nominee when it's almost over INSTEAD of maybe making those possible changes you know for like 2012?

[PatGund]

100. If there is a problem....

....then it needs to be fixed.

AFTER the election though. The rules were set before the race, and they should not be changed until afterwards. Fair is fair.

BTW, my vote wasn't counted because I couldn't make my state's caucus. (Washington state) So I'm not a fan of the caucus system. But the time to change the rules is afterwards, not during

[NJSecularist]

136. Yes, the caucus system needs to be eliminated.

But neither candidate has enough 2025 delegates and undemocratic caucuses shouldn't be the reason why we choose a nominee.

[MattBaggins]

170. So you want a completely undemocratic

part of the system(SDs) to overturn a part of the system(caucus) that is at least partially so.

Disconnect much?

[NJSecularist]

175. Both candidates are on equal footing when you exclude undemocratic caucuses. n/t

[PatGund]

101. dupe

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadBadger]

32. I know...NJS said that Obama would be fine with a 5-10 point loss as well

Looks like that too was a lie

[jackson_dem]

95. That was political junkie chatter. The verdict is in after the result: Clinton won by enough

NJSec, who I battled with several times in the past, is apparently a rational thinker who changes his/her thinking when the facts change.

[jefferson_dem]

207. Enough to give a few knuckle-heads lame talking points. That's all.

She is further away from the nomination now than she was yesterday morning.

Math. Doesn't. Lie.

[jackson_dem]

242. Only if you pretend superdelegates don't exist and ignore the exit poll

I am sure you have read John Judis' article. The question is how many superdelegates are thinking the same way? What we do know is the supers have no shut this down. In fact Clinton picked up a superdelegate today. Not bad for a candidate who the netroots has declared dead.

[Cha]

164. I'm glad he's gone..he was always a scared

little hand wringer for Obama and that was probably just for fucking show.

[jackson_dem]

243. You guys should have weekly loyalty oaths

[newmajority]

51. I suspect that poster's true agenda is something else entirely

Someone protested a little too strongly about the prospect of fertilizing Dick Nixon's grave. Raises a big red flag with me.......

[jackson_dem]

97. Anybody who strays from the reservation is a plant

After all, who else leaves Jonestown? It is such a great place!

[NJSecularist]

119. ......

:spray: :spray:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is too true, jackson.

[Jersey Devil]

25. Right. Only Hillary delegates and states count

It seems to me we've done this before

[BlooInBloo]

34. Amazing coincidence, isn't it?

[jackson_dem]

99. No, it is no coincidence she wins when people have equal access to voting

[Orangepeel]

27. It seems she should have planned better

You'd think that someone who was "ready to lead on Day 1" wouldn't have run such a lousy campaign.

[Yurovsky]

28. Caucuses are FAR MORE democratic than primaries...

for one thing, they keep the fucking republiKKKans out. You don't have to worry about the voting machine software being hacked by the "good folks" at Diebold. It brings people together in a personal way, and allows for the discussion of candidates and their positions. Gee, an informed electorate, what a concept! You would think Democrats would favor such a thing. It is a more collective and progressive way to nominate candidates to represent the true values and ideals of the party, rather than letting Rush Limpdick use his radio show to command his Nazi-robot-minions to flood the crossover primaries and vote for whomever the Reich Fuhrer commands them to.

Time to sack up and just realize that HRC blew this. She had the money, the organization, the Clinton brand name, and most if not all of the major media in her pocket. And she still got beat by a 1st-term Senator with no significant personal fortune and a skin color that works against him with the still significant number of racists in the Democratic party. It was David vs. Goliath (or Ms. Goliath, if you will). And David stomped some ass. Time to wrap your brain around that and accept the reality.

[NJSecularist]

Based on what?

6% turnout is more Democratic than 38% turnout?

[Yurovsky]

317. Well, if you like having the GOP pick your nominee...

then I guess your idea is a much better way to pick the DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate.

Bottom line, Obama is going to be the nominee, and the uneducated, redneck, racist Clintonites need to get on the motherfucking bus.

[Hamlette]

29. its all about the spread sheet

Plouff read the rules and followed them.

He won. Penn lost.

[NJSecularist]

122. Nobody has won.

Does Obama have 2024 delegates yet?

[Hamlette]

279. yes, he does have 2024 delegates

Hey, Hillary has no problem lying all the time, why shouldn't we all get to lie?

I say Obama has already won this thing!

But...if you still want to support Hillary, you better send her some more money because she is broke.

[Bigleaf]

33. Fuck, this is the Democratic Primary. They both knew the rules. I don't care how much you or

anyone else feels this is a sham and undemocratic. Why the fuck wasn't she complaining months before the Primary started about how unfair it was? Oh, I know. She didn't give a fuck and thought she was going to walk away with this. If you, her and the Dem leadership think it is unfair, the rules can be changed after we pick our nominee. You NEVER change the rules in the middle of the game, NEVER.

[NJSecularist]

134. The sham undemocratic caucuses are another reason why Obama is not entitled to the nomination. n/t

[bowens43]

35. blah blah blah blah blah

hillary lost, get over it.

[NJSecularist]

158. Hillary has not lost.

Obama hasn't won anything yet.

[grantcart]

36. Here is an example of a sham caucus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fwJEWLUv8

[NJSecularist]

56. double post n/t

[jackson_dem]

104. That is par for the course but it would be fun to see them defend a corrupt system

[MattBaggins]

195. Not even remotely as funny

as you defending the sham of party bosses deciding the outcome.


A. Caucuses = nice utopian concept of democracy that falls far short in actual practice
B. Party Bosses = completely undemocratic in every way possible

Lets have B overturn A since A is so undemocratic. Brilliant.

[jackson_dem]

241. I haven't done that. If O wins the popular vote he should be the nominee

[MattBaggins]

260. Really

If he wins the popular vote.

Why do I have the feeling that in a few weeks when he is leading in all categories, you will be floating some nonsense about Hillary should win because she made more stump speeches.

[sandnsea]

40. Morally Bankrupt n/t

[BootinUp]

43. How so? nt

[ProSense]

41. Let's look at the delegate margins Obama has assembled in the primary format,

just the states he won:

Mississippi 19
Vermont 9
Maryland 42
Illinois 104
Georgia 61
Alabama 27
Wisconsin 42
District of Columbia 11
Virginia 54
Louisiana 34
Utah 14
Missouri 36
Connecticut 26
Delaware 9
South Carolina 25


513 delegates from primaries Obama won.


Hillary can't win in caucus states so she blames Democratic activists.

Your spin is nonsense.

[NJSecularist]

61. Let me know about the delegate margins Hillary has assembled in the primary format. n/t

[ProSense]

70. Add them all up and Hillary is losing. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

42. So now you're on the 'caucuses are undemocratic' kick.

Funny.

Are you now in the tank for Hillary?

[NJSecularist]

149. I am in the tank for the Democrats. I want to win the election.

Do you?

[jefferson_dem]

200. ?How do you suppose Hillary will win the nomination in order to win the election?

?

[anonymous171]

48. Man you switched fast. You've become a "hilbot" overnight.

[jefferson_dem]

131. Either someone has stolen his/her login info or he/she is the ultimate fair-weather fan.

n/t

[JBoy]

49. Your data tells me Hillary should have tried harder to win caucuses.

Nothing "undemocratic" about it. Clearly she knew the rules, just like for Florida and Michigan.

[Fox Mulder]

50. I nominate this thread for the Squirrel Award.

[myrna minx]

76. Perhaps we could get Squirrel Noir, private eye

to investigate these so called "sham" caucuses. :rofl:

[Fox Mulder]

86. ...

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[billyoc]

53. Why were they good enough in '92, and what has happened to them since then?

The Americans got wise to the lying, triangulating fucking whores that are the DLC.

Every. Other. Thing. Is. The. Same.

[jackson_dem]

109. Guess who DLC governor Brad Henry endorsed today?

I am sure the "netroots" won't give up on the fairy tale, though.

In 1992 there wasn't a 130 or 92 delegate gap (based on whether FL is enfranchised after well over 3,000 delegates were selected. No one saw this coming.

[billyoc]

166. His endorsement will not protect him from a primary challenge, and that's no fairy tale. nt

[TahitiNut]

58. You folks sure are obsessed with sour grapes.

No wonder I'm seeing all your diarrhea in this forum. :eyes:

[here_is_to_hope]

59. And if the Hill took the caucuses? Hmmm?

Yeah, thats what I thought....
Silly poster!

[hulka38]

60. Change the rules during the game if you don't like how the game is going.

Kids that tried this in my neighborhood learned to not try that again or to be happy playing alone.

[jackson_dem]

113. Where in the OP are the rules changed?

The superdelegates can use whatever data they wish to make their decision and the OP presents a strong case against Obama's claims that the pledged delegate scheme should be how the popular will should be measured. The Clinton argument is simple and a traditional democratic as well as Democratic tenet: one person, one vote.

[hulka38]

220. So you and the OP are advocating that in this Democratic Primary of 2008

the delegates gained from caucuses shouldn't count. That's how I'm reading this. Is that correct?

[jackson_dem]

62. And the delegate scheme within states is a fraud too

Some voters were given up to 3x the weight of other votes in PA because districts were not weighted equally. You cannot honestly cite the delegate count as the reflection of the popular will given these undemocratic quirks. The only way to assess the popular will is with the fundamental democratic, and Democratic too (at least before Obama "changes" Obamite views on this), principle of one person, one vote.

[thevoiceofreason]

65. When did you go over to the dark side? I missed that episode.

[nichomachus]

66. Why do I have the feeling

that if Hillary had won all the caucuses, they would be "pure democracy at work" and would be better than the "sham undemocratic primaries?"

The Hillary crowd is getting wackier by the hour. At some point, someone may need to start a 12-step program for them. "I realized that I was powerless over supporting Hillary and that my life had become unmanageable."

[NJSecularist]

67. About 60 posts so far and not one on the actual merits of my post.

Instead, most of them are "You traitor" or "Obama played by the rules".

Hmm....

[MadBadger]

74. You want some tissues?

[anonymous171]

You said you would switch if Obama lost by 15. He lost by 9

To quote Carville, "JUDAS!"

[MadBadger]

78. The OP said specifically, 5-10 point loss would be fine for Obama. he loses by 9.2

And the OP wonders why we want to know WTF?

[NJSecularist]

81. He lost by double digits.

My point stands. I had questions about his electability before, and they were confirmed yesterday.

[MadBadger]

83. Why dont you address my point? You said 5-10 and it was 9.2.

[NJSecularist]

103. You are picking at straws.

For all intents and purposes, it is double digits. Obama got his ass whooped yesterday. His electability is a big question mark right now.

[MadBadger]

112. I'm not picking at straws. You are going against your word.

"I can understand if he loses the state by 5-10 points. Hillary is a strong candidate. She appeals to working class whites, which are a large portion of the PA electorate. This is a state tailor made for her."

Even if we assume that he lost by 10, you included ten in your words.





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5593565&mesg_id=5593565

[NJSecularist]

154. You are picking at straws. n/t

[washingdem]

269. I believe the number 9 falls between the 5-10 range.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

266. 9.2 does not equal 10. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

Arguing that it does is a pathetic excuse. You want to support Hillary, just support her. But don't pull this shit about "well, 9.2 is close enough to 10" crap. You changed your mind. Just admit it and move on.

Also, I love that Hillary didn't think caucuses were bad when she thought she was going to win them and when her husband won them. Not one complaint before then.

[JVS]

107. Quiet you! If you win this argument, we might have to take him back!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

263. LOL

[Tarheel_Dem]

282. LMFAO.........

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No, you take him! No, you take him! No, we had him, and we don't want him! Nuh uh, he's yours now...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

79. The merit of your post is BS. Rules are rules. Want to add another Senator to the big states? n/t

[Jersey Devil]

85. Maybe because your post is bullshit?

The reason Hillary lost the caucuses so badly is not because they were unfair. The reason is that she was not prepared for them. The primary season was supposed to be her coronation with the official crowning expected on Super Tuesday, if not earlier. After all, she was the super duper money raiser of all time and no black rookie kid Senator with 2 years under his belt was going to get the best of her after all.

The thing is, it all happened so fast that her campaign didn't even know it until it was over. Too bad. Had she been ready she'd probably be the presumptive nominee right now. But that skinny black kid, now he WAS ready, wasn't he?

[JVS]

92. Your post has merit?

:rofl:

[Erin Elizabeth]

189. What merits? Your post had NO merits.

Obama HAS played by the rules. The same caucuses that were just fine and dandy when Bill Clinton got the nom are suddenly "undemocratic shams" because Queen Hillary has LOST. She has lost. She would have to win EVERY REMAINING CONTEST by 32% or more just to beat Obama by ONE DELEGATE. That's not going to happen. Not in this universe or any other.

Do you understand that or not? Your post is the sham. If Hillary supporters hadn't gone so around the bend loopy, I'd have laughed at the lovely satire in it.

[stillcool]

258. "Merits"?

You diss the entire process, and you think there is "merit"? What system of government do you want?

[Dbdmjs1022]

75. They don't support your candidate, so they're not fair? And they say Obama supporters whine! Christ

[Cali_Democrat]

82. OK, let's assume your pathetic analysis is correct....

What do you propose? New primaries for the states that had caucuses? :rofl:

Bill didn't seem to have a problem with them in 1992. The rules of the game were known in advance, too bad you fail to understand that.

Caucuses are meant to reward grassroots voters and activists. Caucuses have been around for hundreds of years and now they're a sham and undemocratic? Sorry. No sale! Don't cry because the princess is losing fair and square and according to the RULES!!!

[BootinUp]

93. I take it as an argument to support her

not to overturn caucus results.

[NJSecularist]

96. My point is that Obama's insurmountable delegate lead meme is a cop-out

Neither nominee has 2025 pledged delegates.

Neither candidate likely will.

Thus, his "insurmountable pledged delegate lead" means nothing, seeing as that it was built based on sham undemocratic caucuses.

[ProSense]

105. Oh bullshit! Hillary can't win

Obama can

[NJSecularist]

142. Obama cannot reach 2025 delegates without superdelegates.

He cannot win without superdelegates. Neither can Hillary.

[ProSense]

148. Obviously you're not paying attention. Another point about your nonsensical argument

Obama has won more primaries than Hillary has won states. In each primary, they both get awarded delegates by the same apportionment, and that goes for caucus states too. So to try to spin this as an unfair process is BS. In fact, Hillary had a better shot of winning the nomination than Obama did when it started.

Hillary is behind because she ran a lousy campaign. She would probably be further behind except for her lies and nasty tactics, including questioning Obama's patriotism and trying to claim he is linked to terrorist.

[NJSecularist]

156. The states won argument is irrelevant.

Is Obama going to in Idaho in the general election? Is he going to win to win Utah in the general election?

He won a bunch of small states. Big deal.

[ProSense]

184. The states lost argument is even more stupid. Is Obama going to lose NY?

Is Hillary going to win Illinois?

[NJSecularist]

198. No, but he will lose Ohio, Florida and maybe Pennsylvania.

States that he has lost.

[ProSense]

239. How do you know?

What makes you think he will lose PA: Hillary got 1.25 million votes. Obama got 1.04 million votes. In the Republican primary McCain got 587K votes.

[NJSecularist]

257. And? The Republican nomination is already over. It wasn't contested.

That is indication of nothing.

[Cali_Democrat]

114. Why didn't you call caucuses a sham and undemocratic until now?

They've been around for soooo long. And when Obama wins them they're suddenly a sham and undemocratic.

:eyes:

[sueragingroz]

88. Good analysis

:thumbsup:

K & R

[JNelson6563]

90. Help me out here

Am I mistaken or did I just see a post from you like this morning declaring you wwere switching to Hillary? Hard to imagine you were an Obama supporter until just recently.

What is it with people and their need for facades?

Julie

[Jersey Devil]

102. I am kinda figuring he must be a lawyer practicing his argument technique

maybe like Woody Allen cross examining himself in Bananas. For his next OP I expect him to say:

I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

[karynnj]

94. Virtually all the states used the same procedures they used in 1992

I didn't hear one little peep out of the Clintons on them as shams. Also, they were the democratic establishment for the last 17 years. Bill Clinton could easily have pushed for change in this for 1996 or even 2000 - he might have had a fight, but he never said anything. The conventional wisdom was that caucuses favor the establishment candidates. People active in the party are most likely to caucus. I don't know how many times I read that in 2004 and since to diminish Kerry's Iowa victory over Dean.

When you play a game, the first thing you do is ask the rules and how things will be scored. It is true that a smaller percent of people participate in a caucus, but Obama did not set that up. He ran under the rules that existed. The Clintons have been involved in Presidential politics for nearly 2 decades - Clinton looked at running in 1988. If they are telling us, that it is no fair and that they didn't know how the states chose their delegates - then they are lying or have amnesia - they've done it before.

The problem is that like Bush, there plan B was to make sure that their plan A worked - and when it didn't they started to press to get people to set new rules.

[jackson_dem]

124. They used superdelegates in 1992 too. You can't cherry pick what is used

Some superdelegates will accept the Obama pledged delegate argument. Others will agree with the OP and take that and/or other factors into account, such as the popular vote and electability. Obamites can't complain that the rules should not be "changed" (supposedly allowing any factor not approved by Obama is "changing" the rules) and then demand a similar "change" regarding superdelegates, who should be forced to to vote for Obama based on a scheme that the OP has proven is not the democratic barometer the Obama machine claims it is.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

307. Here in my state before 1992, there were many citizen efforts to keep the caucus system from being

adopted.

Now, those efforts have begun again.

[LTR]

110. If Hillary can't handle caucuses...

...how can she handle the presidency?

[Tarheel_Dem]

292. Or, as she has grown so fond of saying recently, " if you can't stand

the heat"...blah blah blah. These people are so transparent. They are getting their arguments ready to delegitimize Obama's nomination. FL, MI, Caucuses vs. Primaries...I just can't believe this is the same Democratic party I've been a member of my whole life.

[ClassWarrior]

111. Show me one thread where you opposed caucuses BEFORE it was politically...

...expedient for your candidate. Just one.

NGU.

[jackson_dem]

128. Show us one thread where Obamites opposed superdelegates until about 2 months ago

[jefferson_dem]

137. So Hillaryphiles oppose supposedly anti-democratic caucuses but support unaccountable supers

overturning the will of rank-in-file voters and caucusers. Uh huh.

[jackson_dem]

186. No. If she loses the popular vote Obama should be the nominee

[ClassWarrior]

185. I didn't know about superdelegates till about 2 months ago. I've known about caucuses...

...for decades. And while I think the whole idea of SDs is wrong, I'm a responsible citizen of a democracy, and therefore I understand that it wouldn't be right to change the rules in the middle of the contest.

I'll be working on this after the election. Will you? Otherwise you're engaging in nothing more than selfish, impotent whining.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

202. What about you jack? How long have you known about caucuses?

NGU.

[Indenturedebtor]

211. I don't oppose SD's now

I know that they know what you refuse to admit. It's over. At this point it's all about using the kid gloves on teh HRC supporters so they don't throw a temper tantrum and stay home or vote McDeath in November.

This caucus arguement is silly. Have an issue with it, then get someone who hasn't spent all her political capital by being a traitorous ass to try to get the dem party to change it. Until then... sorry rules is rules.

[Mz Pip]

116. Games almost over

let's change the rules retroactively so it will benefit Hillary. :rofl:

[jackson_dem]

129. What rule change is the OP calling for?

[NJSecularist]

145. I am calling for a rule change? n/t

[thoughtcrime1984]

121. Wow, you sure went "all in" for Shillary in a BIG hurry

Those damn "undemocratic" caucuses. God forbid we might have to make an effort to get our votes heard. I guess Hillary supporters aren't as willing to get in a public forum and be counted. They'd rather push a button on a touch screen, where we're not even sure if the vote is being recorded properly, and has no paper trail. I wish all 50 states had caucuses. The truly democratic people would show up and participate, rather than check a box and run out the door.

[jackson_dem]

133. Affluent, native-born, young (relatively) folks would dominate those 2-5% turnout shams

This is change the (elite) can believe in.

[AtomicKitten]

135. Oh dear. The caucuses are mean to Hillary and make her sad.

:(

[barack the house]

150. The GE is undemocratic. Can't change rules half way through...

We told you for ages they shared delegates it's been that way for years. Everyone ignored us and ketpdonating.

[NJSecularist]

162. Nobody wants to change the rules until after this election.

I am just exposing the sham caucus system for what it is.

[Capn Sunshine]

153. So, LET'S DISENFRANCHISE ALL THE CAUCUS STATES

because your candidate didn't win there.
What incredible pap.

[NJSecularist]

165. The caucus system already disenfranchises voters.

6% turnout vs. 38% turnout. Which disenfranchises more voters?

[jefferson_dem]

216. How many these voters / caucusers might your unaccountable supers disenfranchise?

Now there's some (anti)democracy.

[Capn Sunshine]

218. Neither as it stands. But throwing out caucus results does.

this circular argument is just ridiculous.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. Maybe Hillary should've put some resources into the caucuses

Instead of laughing at Obama for going to Idaho. I don't want someone who is too inept to understand the Democratic Party's rules to go up against McCain. I can just see Hillary saying "But I won the big states" on November 5th after McCain beats her heavily in the electoral college.

[NJSecularist]

167. If Hillary wins the big states in the GE, she will have won the election.

Those include Florida and Ohio, two states Obama most likely won't win.

[Hippo_Tron]

171. She'll win New York, Illinois, and California

Not so sure about Florida and Ohio.

[NJSecularist]

177. If you are not sure about Hillary winning Florida and Ohio

what does that say about Obama's chances in both of those states?

She is a better candidate in both of those states.

[Hippo_Tron]

203. April polls aren't very good at reflecting what things will look like in November

Hillary is a known commodity who has a solid base of support but very little room to improve unless people resoundingly reject McCain.

[NJSecularist]

217. Obama will win Cuyahoga County and Franklin County and lose in the rest of Ohio

On the other hand, Hillary can probably win in Southeast Ohio and do very well in Eastern Ohio. She'll also keep her margins of defeat down in the West and Northwest. Obama will get slaughtered in every part of the state but Cuyahoga and Franklin, which are Democratic strongholds.

In Florida, Obama will win in the Gold Coast and nowhere else. Hillary can win in the I-4 corridor and some parts of the panhandle, which are essential for the Democrats to carry that state.

Obama will likely lose both states.

[Hippo_Tron]

230. I don't see any evidence that Hillary can win any of those areas

Just speculation based on results of Democratic Primaries. Blue-collar Democrats love Hillary Clinton, it's not a surprise that she can do well among them. Blue-collar Independents and Republicans are a different story.

[informatico]

159. USA Today editorial (February): Caucuses are no way to pick a president

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-pre.html

[NJSecularist]

168. Caucuses are no way to pick a president.

Yet the Obama folk want to give Obama the nomination based on his lead in the sham caucus system.

[Tarheel_Dem]

295. Any port in a storm, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=219471

[dbmk]

172. One point

The SDs are ofc free to weigh things in as they see fit.

But is it morally defensible to count one state as less than another, because it chose another form of voting under the rules?

Should they not respect a given states choice on how they assign the delegates apportioned to that state?

Again they are free not to. But would it be right?

[NJSecularist]

187. Yes, some states should be counted less than others.

Caucuses have extremely low turnout. They should not count for as much as a state that gets 40% turnout.

[Milo_Bloom]

173. Caucus format is more valid, as it reflects the will of the party.

And remember, the primary is a private process and not open to the masses.

[NJSecularist]

193. It reflects the will of the party?

6% turnout represents the will of the party?

Only the activist side of the party.

[Milo_Bloom]

274. Yes, that is the will of the party.

People who do nothing more than MAYBE vote once every four years shouldn't get an equal say in the candidate.

[OzarkDem]

176. Great analysis

Delegate counts are weighted far more in favor of caucuses than regular primaries. They certainly don't accurately represent the popular vote.

[Political Heretic]

178. Caucuses have been a part of the process for ages. Just because your candidate is losing

doesn't mean much.

[OzarkDem]

188. But their results are viewed differently

and that's why candidates are required to meet the 2025 delegate threshold for automatic nomination, not just a simple majority.

That's also why delegates are only pledged for the first ballot at the convention and can change their vote later when all the factors the delegate counts, popular vote, etc. are considered.

That's why we have a convention, so these issues can be hashed out.

[Erin Elizabeth]

182. It's probably been said, but

it's the SAME DAMN DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES THAT GOT BILL CLINTON THE NOMINATION IN 1992. Try ACTUALLY understanding that. The system was just FINE AND DANDY before this year. Suddenly, now that Queen Hillary has lost, they are shams? Really?

Huh. Weird how that works.

[OzarkDem]

196. Clinton got a higher proportion of delegates

The total required for automatic nomination is 2025, not sure what the number was back in 1992. Whatever it was, Bill met the target number.

This primary is different with neither candidate getting enough delegates to meet the target. So a different process kicks in.

[Erin Elizabeth]

209. No, a different process doesn't kick in.

He got all those delegates with the SAME primary/caucus system that we have now.

[OzarkDem]

228. Our primary/caucus system

is a bifurcated process.

Its designed to follow a different procedure for choosing a candidate when one candidate doesn't reach the 2025 threshold.

Simple majority of delegates is not an automatic nomination.

[Erin Elizabeth]

233. You're still dodging my point.

The SAME SYSTEM was used in 1992. People in Texas did the primary during the day and caucused that night just like they did this year. The states had different primaries--open, closed, semi-open, etc, JUST like they do now.

It is NOT a different process that "kicks in." The only difference this year is that the later states have actually gotten to be a part of it for more than just verifying the presumptive nominee. But the same primaries and caucuses have happened that have always happened and that happened in 1992 when they were JUST PEACHY KEEN and not shams for Bill Clinton.

[NJSecularist]

205. The race wasn't this close in 1992. n/t

[Erin Elizabeth]

213. What does that have to do with ANYthing?

It was the SAME process. Primaries and primary-caucuses were in place in 1992 just like they are today. And Bill Clinton used them quite well to garner enough delegates to become the nominee. Caucuses are either democratic or they aren't. Has nothing to do with how close the race is.

I didn't hear ANY Democrats back then calling the caucuses "shams." And now suddenly they are? So they're good enough for you when your candidate is winning, but when your candidate isn't, they're undemocratic.

Got it.

[Barack_America]

183. Joined Jan. 10, 2008. No donor star. Changed candidates how many times?

Thanks for revealing your true agenda.

Sorry, but you'll not get me to bite and fight you.

BTW, say 'hi' to your friends at the other site.

[jefferson_dem]

194. Yup. I'm suspicious too.

Changes sides just in time to cause do his/her little bit of "chaos".

Hmmm...

[NJSecularist]

201. I've only changed candidates once.

I'll be donating soon. Don't worry about that.

I am not asking you to fight me.

BTW, the only other Democrat site I visit is Huffington Post.

[Barack_America]

234. Can't blame me for being suspicious.

I went back and looked at the first OPs you posted.

They were about watching Bill O'Reilly trashing Edwards, Romney winning NV and McCain winning SC.

I found that interesting.

[AJH032]

192. The worst was Nevada

where Hillary won but lost the delegate count.

[Donna Zen]

197. I don't know your involvement in this

but I know mine. I attend Dem meetings that include an over four hour round trip at my expense. I read everyone one of those damn rules, took notes and highlighted them. And then I voted on them after hours of debate.

Ickes, Hillary's guy, was on the national rules committee. Now what?

No where on those pages did it say one word about our caucus not counting. We had an opportunity to have a primary paid for by the state, but chose to have a caucus because they are good for building the party. Oh, the caucus by the way is not free; it is paid for by the state party. You know, money that we raise.

I cannot tell you how angry I am. the national party must step up and stop this. If my time doesn't matter, my energy and money don't matter, my vote doesn't matter, then what the fuck kind of party is this? I'm really really pissed. Our time and energy used and abused by the Team Clinton.

Oh...FL & MI knew the rules. At any time over the past year, they could have developed a plan to have an acceptable vote. They, not the other states or Dean, let their voters down and now they want to have a pity party.

[OzarkDem]

231. Neither candidate has the 2025 delegates necessary

and the race is still too close to call.

[Donna Zen]

261. The topic was the delegates awarded by caucus

The OP inferred that those delegates were lesser in value and thus, deserving less respect.

I would posit that when my state followed the rules of the Democratic Party to the letter, we earned our right to be treated just as any other delegate.

When citizens participate without a promise of reward in the civic process, there should be no question in the minds of fair people that they are honorable. This latest argument that popular vote is a deciding factor was never part of the conversation when my committee was making decisions for the Democrats in Maine. This shifting playing field is wrong.

We did what we were tasked to do.

Many people have lots of ideas now; however, how many of those people who are condemning the caucus process actually took their time and paid attention when it matter? I did. Did you? Did the originator of this thread?

Each state party posted the rules on their websites or should have posted them. Before our final vote on the rules, we actively asked for public comment for two months.

This primary took lots of people lots of their time all across America. Maybe our fellow Democrat should be thanking them instead of belittling our work. No where; at no time; was our committee told that to have votes counted, we would need to participate in the states primary. Changing the rules and then tossing out votes is no way to conduct a democracy.

[OzarkDem]

277. I didn't read it that way

I read it as an analysis that showed how the number of people participating in caucuses is so low compared to primary elections, yet their states are awarded large numbers of delegates. It was making the case that caucus states are "over represented" in delegate selection compared to primary states.

I may have missed something, but I didn't see an inference that caucus voters themselves were inferior.

[Donna Zen]

298. And I'm saying

That no one anywhere made the rule that delegates would be graded by popular vote prior to the work that went into my Democratic State Party's decision to hold a caucus. In addition, it should be noted that we like our caucus because it promotes party building and citizen participation. People who attend caucus speak and discuss the candidates. Also, please understand the delegates chosen there are delegates who will attend the party convention where the eventual delegates will be elected. Pennsylvania just had a primary, but that primary only picks a slate of delegates, not the candidate.

Changing the rules mid-election process will always be wrong. If you or anyone doesn't like caucus, then the objections should be made during the rules and organization process.

[govegan]

206. No one has proven that Ms. Clinton actually won the most votes in PA

Have they?

I submit that not one individual on this board, or on this planet, can actually prove the true vote count in PA.

In order to do that, the machines and software would have to be impounded and all records would have to exist of vote databases in a manner that could be verified to be unaltered. Given the current political climate in the Neo-fascist States of America, this is not going to happen.

What you are dealing with is prime, first-class, vaporware. The neo-fascist thugs, to whom many other politicians have been all too friendly (whether naively or purposefully is not the question), have placed the democratic cart before the horse, if you will. They have convinced and duped American people into believing that a neo-fascist state does not have to prove its honesty or openness, but that the citizenry must prove conclusively the dishonesty or concealment of the facts.

Sorry, that is not what democracy is about.

The will of the people can only be manifested if it is seriously taken into consideration, not given lip-service with paperless vaporware.

Your open disdain for hands-on, participatory democracy shows once again the level to which the most heavily propagandized people on the planet take in their own hype and hoopla.

Whether one candidate or another received more votes may not be the issue where wide margins are involved, but the actual magnitude of victory or defeat can not possibly be established without asking folks to buy into the vaporware propaganda.

No, in answer to your post, in neo-fascist America it is the primaries themselves that are primarily unverifiable and a mockery of democratic processes. And it is not the place of citizens to prove that it is so. If you claim to have some sort of "democratic" process, let the figures of authority prove that everything is verifiable, accurate, conclusive and reproducible. That can not be done with this current government.

But isn't this the essence of capitalism, the lovely handmaiden of fascism and warmongering, in the modern power and information age? Of course! Someone needs to keep us enthralled in our spiral of powerlessness, fearful of scarcity and incomprehensible technology. Voting is just so damned complicated, we need some good capitalists to take it out of our hands so we can buy us some of that, too.

Buy some more tv's and listen to all the talk. Order up some fast food. The faster the better because it's disappearing pretty fast, and we need that land to feed the animals. Order up some bottled water while you are at it.

Whatever you do, don't meet with friends and neighbors to discuss politics. We don't want any of that subversive talk about cooperation, or common good. No, no, no. :sarcasm:

[PM7nj]

212. We'll I see you have finally flipped... nt

[DrFunkenstein]

214. Caucuses Measure Organizational Strength and Grassroots Enthusiasm

Which is why Obama beat Clinton's incompetent, uninspiring campaign. She totally failed to account for these states, believing that her coronation was pre-destined. She didn't even have a post-Super Tuesday plan.

I guess she was expecting a cakewalk where everyone comes out with flowers to greet her as a liberator.

[OzarkDem]

235. As do primary elections

But caucuses are much more prone to inaccuracies - some require no proof of residency or voter registration. People often aren't allowed to keep their vote private and are subject to pressure from others, etc.

It is what it is, but it has more flaws than the primary elections.

[kwenu]

215. Wait. You go from Obama to Hillary in 1 day and start posting trash like this?

You're as big of a fraud as the Hillary campaign at this point.

[PA Democrat]

225. This is kind of like watching the pigs of Animal Farm rewrite the seven commandments.

All primaries are equal, but some primaries are more equal than others.

[jefferson_dem]

229. McCain Hearts You...

To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results
The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.

Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.

With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.

Since last night, the Clinton campaign reportedly raised $10 million dollars online - enough to make a significant dent in upcoming media buys in North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama continues to surpass fundraising expectations and will most likely continue to do so. We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.

Pennsylvania exit polls tell an interesting story that has implications for November.

* Even though Hillary Clinton won this primary, Barack Obama is seen as the front runner among Pennsylvania Democrats and is perceived to be the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Party's nomination.

Fifty-five percent of Pennsylvania voters say they believe Barack Obama will be the nominee in November. And, one-fifth of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters believe he will be the nominee in November. So, the victory for Clinton is seen as a bump in the road for Obama, even by some of her true believers.

* Exit polls reveal why this poses significant problems for Obama if he becomes the nominee. The most important problem: Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.

Obama only wins 72% of the Democratic vote in a general election match up among those surveyed last night. Clinton shows her broad coalitional strength and wins 81% in a general election match up against John McCain. A full quarter of the Democrats in Pennsylvania are not willing to cast their ballot for Obama against McCain (15% say they vote McCain and 10% say they stay home), however, Clinton loses only 17% of Democrats (10% for McCain and 7% would not vote). This gap of 8-points would be significant in a general election match up. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2-points in 2004, when 41% of the electorate were Democrats. That 8-point gap among Democrats is enough to swing the state the other way (8% of 41% is 2.8-points, turning Pennsylvania red). This dynamic is clearly visible in publicly released surveys; an average of April polls show McCain trailing Obama by an average of 3-points (3 surveys in April) and trailing Clinton by 8-points.

The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.

* Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 59% of Union members (Obama 41%). Obama won these voters by significant margins in Wisconsin (+9), but has lost his hold on their vote in both Ohio (Clinton 55% - 43%) and now Pennsylvania.

* Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters.
Our targeting and analysis of the 2008 political landscape puts voters who are on the lower economic brackets at the heart of either party's winning coalition. Hillary won at every income level below $150,000, and Obama only won with the wealthiest Pennsylvania voters. Obama's media foibles contributed to his inability to connect to voters who are suffering the real impact of this challenging economic environment.
This is also apparent in the number of voters who feel Clinton is more in touch with their views. Fifty-six percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them - again a significant switch from earlier contests. Wisconsin exit polls shows Obama had a 12-point advantage on that measure. By the time Ohio held their primary, Clinton had switched the dynamic and led by 12-points.

* Clinton won Catholic voters.
In Wisconsin, Clinton split the Catholic vote 50%-50% with Obama. Again, she changed the dynamic in Ohio and won Catholics by 27-points (63% - 36%). In Pennsylvania, she increased her margins and won by 38-points (69% - 31%). The strength of this coalition bolsters her argument that Obama would have had problems competing in Michigan and will not be able to carry key Midwestern states in November.

* Clinton won Jewish voters.
In Pennsylvania, the first state where both candidates competed for a significant block of Jewish voters, Clinton won by 15-points (57% - 43%). Again, the data suggests Jewish voters, a key Democratic coalition, pose a potential problem for Obama.

* Clinton increased her margins in suburban and rural areas - without losing ground in urban areas. Clinton won Pennsylvania suburbs by a 12-point margin and won rural areas by 22-points. And Clinton lost in urban areas by 14-points. This is similar to her Ohio performance. But, it shows an increase in her performance in urban areas from earlier contests (in Wisconsin she lost urban areas by 21-points). Clinton has figured out how to increase her margins among suburban and rural voters and cut into Obama's base of urban voters.

What does that mean for John McCain?

Ultimately most pundits contend that Hillary Clinton still has more than an uphill battle to become the nominee. So, what does this victory mean for John McCain?

While the Democratic nomination continues to unfold, our campaign is actively engaged in listening to voters' concerns and sharing John McCain's message with them. Senator McCain has an active schedule in the coming weeks. Last week, he gave a major economic address where he addressed short term concerns like enacting a summer gas tax holiday, he proposed a new "HOME Plan" to help those who are hurt by the housing crisis and he is proposing a student loan continuity plan to make sure America's college students aren't hurt from the credit crunch. In addition, Senator McCain has spent this week travelling to places many in our nation have forgotten and where our citizens have felt left behind but where hope, innovation and local solutions are helping to lift these communities up. And, next week, Senator McCain will visit various health care facilities and unveil his plans and solutions to help Americans improve access and affordability to good health care. In addition, the campaign is building our organization and resources for the campaign in the fall.

[powergirl]

236. President Bill Clinton embraced and did just fine with the caucus system

It's bad b/c Sen. Clinton is losing them.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

237. EXACTLY the point of why the super delegates were created....and they know how to see this and will

do their job

[EFerrari]

245. Don't worry! There's always Guam.

[Condem]

246. Hey, NJ

I asked Jackson last night. Now, I'll ask you. Ever been to a caucus? I got no answer from Jackson and I doubt I'll get one from you.

[Condem]

247. No, I didn't think so

Probably moved on to American Idol.

[NJSecularist]

249. I live in NJ. We vote via primaries. So no.

But I know how a caucus works.

[Condem]

252. I'll tell you how my caucus worked, NJ

No herd mentality, no milk & cookies, just people gathering with their neighbors. I live in very liberal Iowa City and Hillary wasn't even viable first round. One more thing, NJ. No machines with Diebold written on them. If you haven't been to one, don't trash them.

[Condem]

259. NJ, you out there?

[NJSecularist]

287. Yes, I am. I read your post. I understand what you are saying.

Still, caucuses have extremely low turnout and tend to favor the activist wing of the party.

[Buzz Clik]

250. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That giant sucking sound is your thumb in your mouth.

[gsaguyCLW54]

251. I couldnt agree more.....

[Hawkeye-X]

254. CAUCUS THIS!

[stillcool]

255. This is a sham of a Democratic Party..

Delegates don't count, the fucking Iowa Caucus doesn't count, States don't count, votes don't count. A candidate sues the Nevada Democratic Party because the other guy got endorsed! What kind of a party is this?

[last_texas_dem]

256. Bottom line is, Clinton should have run a better campaign

I think primaries are preferable to caucuses, but, as of early 2008, several states use caucuses. If Clinton had run a better campaign, focusing on winning these caucuses (if they're as worthless as some Clinton supporters claim, it shouldn't have been that difficult for Clinton to have swung some of them in her direction), this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. I don't recall a single Clinton supporter moaning about how undemocratic caucuses were until she started losing them.

If you're concerned about the use of caucuses to determine nominees for the variety of problems that stem from their use, start lobbying state parties to switch to primaries in future election cycles. But whining about the *results* of them because your candidate (I'm assuming she's you candidate...) failed to turn out her supporters effectively is just pathetic.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

264. Excellent, and speaking as delegate, those winter pledges may change with the state conventions.

The pledged delegates can change their affiliations, up to and including the state conventions. No one ever mentions that, though.

[neverforget]

265. The only states that count in Hillary's world are the ones she won.

Every other state can be thrown under the bus.

[Rabrrrrrr]

268. OMG! Obama must have set up the caucus system decades before he ran for office!

:eyes:

They can't have anything to do with the states making those decisions themselves ages ago...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

272. Most insidious of all, he set it up knowing Bill Clinton would take advantage of the system

and thus make it *seem* fair.

the FIEND

[scheming daemons]

273. A half-century before his birth, Obama was able to get caucuses enacted in dozens of states in ...

..preparation for his run for office 100 years later.


Damn.... He *IS* "the one".



Obama didn't make the rules. The fact that his campaign chose to understand the rules of the game they were about to play, and Hillary's campaign did not do so is not Obama's problem.


Hillary Clinton's campaign knew (or should have known) the rules before the game started. They chose not to play the game as well.


Once again... proves that Obama is the better "executive".

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

276. The best thing about the primaries was exposing the caucus system.

It makes little sense and is easily manipulated.

Plus, it disenfrachises a lot of voters.

Thanks for the post.

[cliffordu]

278. TOUGH SHIT. Go move the goalposts in some other country if you don't like it

[kdpeters]

280. Hillary's failure to organize and deliver turnout/delegates in caucus states is her problem

It is not a problem of the processes and rules already in place and known ahead of time by both candidates.

Caucuses are highly democratic requiring actual participation of the people in the process for more than simply a nominal casting of a vote. I totally reject your premise that participation in the democratic process is undemocratic. Superdelegates, on the other hand, are completely undemocratic -- each one representing exactly ZERO party members, ZERO registered voters, ZERO participation of any one of We the People in that process.

There is nothing wrong with the caucus system so far as to require scrapping it completely. It's the superdelegate system that totally needs to be trashed for good. Should the superdelegates override the will of the people who care enough to participate, hopefully there will be hell to pay. I don't believe that they will.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

299. "a nominal casting of a vote". But that's the fundamental personal right of a democracy.

Hardly nominal.

[IndianaGreen]

281. I didn't see Hillary telling Iowans their caucus was a sham and undemocratic

She was so busy kissing ass over there. Once she lost Iowa, Iowa became a problem and Iowans became idiots to Hillary.

[BeyondGeography]

283. You're carrying on like a born-again fundie or a reformed alcoholic

Embarrassing.

[totodeinhere]

284. Has the three posts per day rule been relaxed?

I count at least four posts from you today (Wednesday.)

[NJSecularist]

286. No, I have a 3 post limit. n/t

[totodeinhere]

290. Perhaps it's time zone difference. I am in the Pacific so a post you...

made after midnight your time might show up differently in my time zone.

But back to your topic. Caucuses have been an accepted part of the nominating process for a long time. Each state has the right to chose which format they want to use. But if the party really thinks that caucuses are undemocratic they can outlaw them. But if and until that happens we have to work with the system we have. Clinton had an equal opportunity to compete in the caucuses. It was a big blunder on the part of her campaign not to put more emphasis on caucuses like the Obama campaign did.

[Diane R]

285. Yep....Obama wins caucuses. Hillary doesn't. Interesting she loses when the votes can't be rigged.

[ruggerson]

288. Terrific post - recommended

NJS, do you remember my post about Wyoming and how each Democrat there had the weight of about fifteen Ohians?

This system is so ridiculously flawed, it's no wonder we keep losing Presidential elections.

[NJSecularist]

289. I do not remember the thread.

But you are right about the system. It needs to be scrapped.

[ruggerson]

291. Here you go:

you might find it interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4979630

[NJSecularist]

293. Thank you for this. n/t

[Zhade]

294. Caucuses aren't shams just because you don't understand how they work.

Fail.

[Rose Siding]

296. Sorry, but I've had it with pols who break rules (aka "laws") to suit themselves

[ElsewheresDaughter]

302. then Kerry and Kennedy have to vote for Clinton in Denver

[JCMach1]

297. All true, but you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the contest

The party needs to evaluate the effect of Caucuses and proportional allocation of delegates at the end of this cycle.

Personally, I don't think either make much sense in an electoral college environment.

[Terran]

300. wow, is it Opposites Day?

Caucuses are undemocratic?? What the hell is wrong with you?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

301. kick

[cosmik debris]

304. Losers always complain that the system is unfair.

But they don't remember to complain until AFTER the results are in.

[wowimthere]

305. Padded lead by undemocratic means... Dems set the rules. Hill went along with them...

If clinton had won the caucuses, you wouldn't be writing this post. Tell the truth. The system is what we have. They both agreed to the rules (one doesn't want to play by them anymore of course) and she lost those caucuses. She had way more advantages than Obama and she was flat out-campaigned. If she can't win more than one or two caucuses, what does that say about her?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

309. it still doesn't change the fact nor the data

[mistertrickster]

311. Wrong on many levels--

1. Caucuses make it harder for Repukes to switch over and f*** with who our candidate is going to be.

2. Caucuses are not counted by unverifiable, electronic voting machines.

3. Here's where your analysis really falls apart: "1,208,608 estimated voters total have showed up at 15 caucuses. That is a little more than half of how many voters showed up at one primary, in Pennsylvania!"

Irrelevant. The delegates apportioned to each state is based on the population of that state. The percentage who choose to vote makes no difference in the number of delegates just like it makes no difference in the number of electors a candidate wins in the general election.

If my home state of Kansas only has a SINGLE PERSON vote in the general election, all six electoral college votes will go to the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote.

*****

Obama is ahead in the popular vote, in the pledged delegates, in the number of states won, in the money raised, in the number of donors giving.

Other than that, Hillary's doing great.

[Hugabear]

313. Poor crybaby, wants to change the rules yet again!

Tell me, how many more rules do you want to change so that Hillary can win the nomination?

As has already been pointed out many times, her husband had no problem winning caucuses.

You FAIL.

[racaulk]

315. The rules were established before the Iowa caucuses were held.

If Hillary felt that the caucuses were undemocratic, then she should have said so before she started losing them!

FWIW, I would be happier with an all-primary system as well and I do think the caucuses are inherently unfair. However, the fourth quarter of the game is not the appropriate time to question the ref about the rules. These were the rules that Hillary agreed to before the game even began.

[HopeforChange]

316. It's all about the Delegates ... Wake Up !

[FatDave]

318. For fuck's sake!

Go be republicans then if you don't like the way we do things. Your candidate seems well suited to it. Until then, shut the fuck up about the caucuses already. You're all acting like a bunch of ridiculous sore losers. This is how we've done it for decades, and it was never a problem until your candidate couldn't compete in the caucuses. Stop trying to change every fucking rule that she was unprepared for. Fuck, I can't believe I'm wasting my time on you. You, and your beef against the caucuses, are pathetic.

[Aussie leftie]

319. K&R

[Mme. Defarge]

320. Get over yourself, and

your candidate.

[goldcanyonaz]

321. NJSecularist I always knew you would come to see the light.

:woohoo:

[NJSecularist]

322. ....

:)

After Pennsylvania, I realized Obama was unelectable.

I'm now in Hillary's camp. I want to win this election.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

323. kick