Sadly my vote for Hillary Clinton was negated by some Republican thug with no ethics or integrity that will then proudly cast a vote for McCain in November.

Our system of open and same day registration in Wisconsin is supposed to make voting easier for everyone. Trust the Republicans to play the system for their own benefit. May be legal, but for people that blabber on about their "values" it sure isn't ethical or something done by people of integrity. Guess those things aren't of value to them like they are to me.

Rush Limbaugh is telling Texas Republicans to do the same. Kinda makes ya wonder if those people that don't bother to vote, and whom I have excoriated over the years may not be right. If our elections are played, corrupted, and otherwise not representative of the voter's wishes, what's the point?  

Last summer I wrote a couple of diaries designed to show the power that New Hampshire and Iowa have in the primary process.  My point at the time was that few understood how the system really worked, and how much power was being given to two states.

The DNC's primary goal over the last year has been to protect Iowa and New Hampshire.  Lesser concerns about the essentially anti-democratic nature of the primary process have been of little interest.  In fact, the entire theory of super-delegates is to reduce the amount of influence average voters have in the selection of the Democratic nominee.

The simple truth is that the DNC's actions in Florida and Michigan are outrageous.  Much of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of Dean, who should have resolved this issue before voting took place in Michigan and Florida.

An analysis of a 2/20 IVR Poll shows that:

Analysis of the data has revealed a surprisingly large number of Democratic primary voters that would vote against the same candidate in the general that they voted for in the primary. Almost all are older white Bush voters, and they break heavily for Obama. Those that break for Clinton are mostly female, while the Obama voters are equally split on gender.

This group of voters is outside of the expected model, and will require revisions to be made. Backing them out of the Democratic part of the model will tilt the numbers towards Clinton, but then adding them on top of the Democratic model should boost Obama's numbers, possibly giving him the lead.

And also via Corrente, check out this ABC graphic about Democratic voter preferences in Ohio and Texas.

This, of course, comes after Paul Lukasiak's analysis of Democratic participants showing that Clinton was up more than 600,000 votes among people who identified themselves as Democrats (pre-Wisconsin).

Barack Obama's team took advantage of this by having busloads of public high school students delivered to his daytime rally at the Seattle Center the day before the caucuses . . . those kids were fired up.  

It felt a little odd to sit in that room and watch 17-year-olds cast the deciding votes in our precinct--I mean, my own daughter was one of them.  

And anyway, what's so great about the popular vote that parties shouldn't let their more devoted cohorts have an extra say in the nomination?
Are the opinions of people who are less engaged superior to those who are involved with the process, or vice versa? I'd argue the latter. We have "a republic, if you can keep it," not a "little d" democracy. The 2000 elections should have taught everyone that the electoral college, e.g., is not required to submit to the popular will - the Constitution makes the popular vote a part of the process, but not all of it.

1. Maybe we can have a better system next time.

2. The results of this unfair set of rules are being used to leverage other advantages in the process, like the argument that all hell will break loose if the superdelegates don't follow the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates.  Yes, the state of Texas can use a hand of poker to allocate its delegates if it wants, but there's no reason superdelegates should care about the results of a process that allocates delegates in such an unfair manner.  They should vote for who they believe to be the best candidate, period.

I agree that a hybrid/caucus system seems needlessly complex and counter-productive.  

But if Texas wants to select their nominee by drawing straws, in a proprortional manner to comply with DNC rules, isn't that their right?

I don't mean this to be contrarian but the entire system is designed to allow each state to come up with their own system.  These systems have morphed over the years.

We can chide Texas if we want but ultimately it is up to the citizens of Texas to change their nomination process.

What we are seeing happen in Nevada at the second stage of the caucus, with voter intimidation and outright threats of physical harm, indicates quite clearly what is wrong with the system.

Closed primaries show how many people in the party like a candidate.  Open primaries can give evidence that someone is more appealing to independents.  Caucuses are a test of depth of feeling and organizational skill.

If we switched to just having one type of election, we'd run the risk of having a bland candidate that no one outside the party really liked, a group of people trying to game our system, or a candidate that a few people absolutely love but everyone else dislikes.  Mixing them around increases the odds of getting someone who can win all three types of elections.

Another advantage of the process is that it's a test of the candidate.  Having different rules and approaches, shows us a little about their organizational skills, their ability to understand convoluted systems, and how to deal with unexpected challenges.

BUT... these are the rules, and one campaign has done a better job at understanding and playing by them than another. For Bill Clinton to suggest that Hillary could win the primary and then have her victory stolen from her in the caucus is breathtaking.  If they had their stuff together, they'd know how to win both.

Oh, for the record, I said so before, during and after Iowa. Texas is what it is and the Clintons have to play be these rules. But my gawd, is it so hard to acknowledge these rules stink?

If you read aaaaall the way to the bottom of Oliver's massive 163-word post, you'll see he agrees, almost to the letter:

The rules are wacky, they are weird, but they are the stinking rules.

If the nomination is wrapped up after March 4 or after the Pennsylvania vote, we'll have several months to go until the national convention.

In that time, will all the anxiety created by this dysfunctional process be forgotten?

There was a hue and cry over the Electoral College after 2000, but squat happened.

Admittedly, reforming our party's nomination process would be easier than eliminating the Electoral College.  I still think it's possible that we get a case of collective amnesia regarding the primary.

Here are some of the reasons I will be leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent if and when Hillary Clinton bows out of the nomination race:

1. There is a disturbing lack of loyalty in our ranks.  After everything the Clintons accomplished in the 90s, they were abandoned by a bunch of ingrates.

2. The silence from our party leaders when our candidates were subjected to media atrocities such as race-baiting, sexism, and double standards.  Where was Howard Dean, where was Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid? Nobody and I mean NOBODY called out the media while they were brutally unfair to one of our most admired Democratic women.

3. Undemocratic, corrupt farce that is our primary system.  Allowing crossover Republicans to have so much influence over our nomination is ridiculous.  I never want to hear the term Open Primary again.

4. Caucus system that allows a small minority of our electorate to bully and bus their way in to victory while we disenfranchise huge populations in the primary states of Florida and Michigan.
   

5. The liberal, so-called Democratic blogosphere.  Nothing needs to be said about this.   It is a swap full of tragedy now.

6. 2012 is right around the corner.  Sweet release! lol