Aw, screw it.... One more Devil's Advocate post for Hillary Supporters.

[FlyingSquirrel]

This time it's not a "Hillary can still win this" post 'cause I think even most of her supporters realize that now it's gotten down to a near-impossibility.

This one is a "What if the caucuses had been primaries" post.

Because in Washington State, we actually can see what might have been.

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

So, in WA Obama won the caucuses, 67.5% to 31.2%. He won the primary, 51.2% to 45.7%.

Obama got 16.3% fewer primary votes than caucus delegates, and Hillary got 14.5% fewer primary votes than caucus delegates. An average between the two numbers is 15.4%.

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

I'll leave Iowa and Nevada out of this. Let's say that in all the rest of the caucus states, had they been primaries instead, the person who won that state would have received 15.4% fewer votes and the person who lost would have received 15.4% more votes.

Obama has won the remaining caucus state delegates 249 to 118, with 5 uncommitted. That's 66.94% to 31.72% of them. If you reduce Obama by 15.4% and increase Hillary by 15.4%, then Hillary could have gained 57 more delegates while Obama lost 57.

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

The current Pledged Delegate count is:

Obama 1740.5, Clinton 1624.5; Total 3,365.0

Subtracting 57 from Obama and adding 57 to Clinton we'd get:

Obama 1683.5, Clinton 1681.5; Total 3,365.0

This is pretty close to being in line with the popular vote.

---------

Now, I'm not saying that caucuses aren't democratic; I'm certainly not saying Hillary's campaign shouldn't be penalized for the fact that it failed to recognize the importance of the caucus states.

What I'm saying is, Hillary supporters should not be castigated for their reading of the situation. Because the situation is, America is not currently divided 51.7% Obama to 48.3% Clinton, as the current delegate count would suggest; it's divided more like 50.03% to 49.97% (and even that is uncertain).

So Obama is not winning this primary election by a landslide, he's winning it by the barest of margins and that does not give him the kind of mandate some people here are taking from it. Obama's supporters (not all, but a majority of them) here on DU are making the same mistake Republicans made in the last 7.5 years - winning the election by a very slim margin (yes, yes I know they stole it) and using this win to completely tromple on those who did not win.

And acting like Republicans is just not cool.

[lligrd]

1. Obama Would Have Changed His Strategy

if that were the case.

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. Yes, I've heard this before.

But there's no guaranteeing that this would have given him the victory. He had a winning strategy, and his campaign is to be congratulated. But your contention that he would have found a different way to win had the caucuses been primaries does not change the main point that his supporters here on DU should not be acting as though Obama beat Hillary by 20% when in fact he barely won.

[countmyvote4real]

8. But he has won, Blanche. He has. n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Are you referring to me as Blanche for a reason?

Other than to be offensive and missing the point?

BTW I'm a 40-year old man and an Obama supporter.

I might alert on your post as being inflammatory, but it serves as a nice example of the type of crap Hillary supporters have to put up with day after day here on DU, that is completely inappropriate.

[ruggerson]

15. It's a Bette Davis riff

I'm sure there was no harm meant.

[countmyvote4real]

16. Of course not. It is a camp icon film moment along the lines of "May the force be with you."

I'm just saying that he has already won the nomination, Jack. Feel better?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056687/

I think we actually agree that Obama is the nominee. If I wanted to lash out, it would look more like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6221812&mesg_id=6222267

[samdogmom]

10. Agreed!

Obama's entire campaign was coordinated to match the organizational effort to the contest at hand.

Message to OP: Since Hillary didn't have the foresight or fortitude to do this...second guessing her caucus strategy is just going to give you grey hair.

Bottom line...maybe you should think of this as a game of chess. She's been checkmated!

Sorry!

P.S. FACT OF LIFE: Someone always has to lose. There can be only one winner!

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. The point of the OP was not really to wonder what might have been.

The point was to show that although he won by a delegate count that will not be surmountable, in fact Democrats in this country are nearly EXACTLY split over this nomination and the side that lost should be treated with more respect by the side that won, here on DU and of course also in real life. And that their concerns are important.

[samdogmom]

14. okay

[tularetom]

2. Maybe some DU'ers are acting like republicans but Obama is definitely not

He's been very conciliatory to her but you must realize he (or one of his 'people') will have to yank the rug out from under her so he can get serious with the campaign.

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. Absolutely, I realize this. And I wish his followers here on DU would take a page

from his playbook with regard to their attitude toward Hillary supporters.

Not that I'm blameless, I've had a couple of blow-ups but in general I try to see things from the other side's point of view as well.

[papau]

5. Sigh -most DU Obama fans take pride in no Hill VP unity & only condescendingly "welcome aboard" Hill

supporters

Which is why at least some Hill supporters are pushing going to convention rules for a fight and then working against Obama - there is a lot of bitterness about the way Hill as VP is being treated.

As Obama is not man enough to go against his wife and make Hill the offer (or they both are too arrogant), I expect an interesting November.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[goletian]

6. lol, the race is even closer if we put reality aside. hypotheticals are only ever just that.

[Yotun]

7. Sigh, primaries done after caucuses are irrelevant. Why would people bother to vote. Is it any wonde

r the results are different?

[FlyingSquirrel]

11. But they DID bother to vote.

In many cases, the people who voted in the primary did so because they were unable to attend the caucus. In some cases, they both caucused and voted in the primary.

The fact of the matter is, nearly 700,000 people voted in Washington State's democratic primary, even though most of them probably knew it would not count.

That's an awful lot of people who "bothered to vote" in a meaningless, irrelevant primary.

Also many of them actually voted before the caucus by mail.