home
Rule Are Rules, Except When They Are Not | 211 comments (211 topical)
I Thought I Was Clear (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
The more democrats who turn out at caucuses, the closer they are.  The two where the highest percentage of Dems turned out was Iowa, where the great Obama certainly won, I'm not denying that, and Nevada.  The turnout in those other caucus states is embarrassingly low in terms of total democratic voters.

Put another way, I'm still angry that Washington Democrats will get 1 pledged delegate for every 2,500 caucus participants and California will get one for every 10,800 voters.  The reason?  Caucuses suppress the number of democrats who compete in them.

The caucus system is a travesty and makes the pledged delegate allocation, which was already a travesty (see Iowa, see Nevada) even worse.

This is no way to pick a nominee.

[ Parent ]

It's also (none / 0) (#133)
by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
because Clinton decided not to contest the caucus states on 2/5 and afterward. She contested them early on (lots of organizers in IA and NV) and they were close.

Instead, she spent all her money on...well, no one's sure, but the news reports make it sound like it wasn't well spent.

Caucuses are designed to give the person with the most money and institutional support an advantage. Everyone thought that would be Clinton (including her), but oops, turns out Obama played a better strategy by getting his team on the ground in the caucus states way before and in much greater numbers than she did.

Simply, he worked hard for it and she didn't, ergo he won.

[ Parent ]

Rule Are Rules, Except When They Are Not | 211 comments (211 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft