All Four Caucus-Primary States Show Same Trend

The Idaho primary was last night. In the Feb. 5, caucuses, Barack Obama won 79% of the vote to Hillary's 17%. A total of 21,224 Idahoans participated.

In last night's primary, Obama won 56% to 38%, with 42,000 voting.

Twice as many people voted in the primary as the caucus and Obama got 23% fewer votes.

The same thing happened in Nebraska, Washington and Texas, the other three states that have held both primaries and caucuses.

DaveOinSF at MyDD has a new graphic up showing the trends. [More...]

And from P. Cronin's Caucus-Primary report (pdf):

Turnout was 30 to 40% higher in Washington and Nebraska at the primaries:

  • Washington (34%)
    238,000 Caucus turnout
    691,381 Feb 19 2008 State Primary

At the caucuses, Obama beat Hillary 67.5% to 31.2%. At the primary, his lead was down to 51.2% to 45.7%.

  • Nebraska (41%)
    38,571 Caucus Turnout
    94,905 May 20 2008 State Primary

At the caucuses, Obama beat Hillary 68% to 32%.
At the primary, Obama led Hillary 49.4% to 46.6%.
Obama's lead dropped from 36% to 2.8%.

In Texas,

Over 2.8 million Texans voted in the primary and gave Clinton a 100,000 vote margin over Obama, a 52% to 48% win. However, just hours later, the Texas caucus registered an Obama win over Clinton of 56% to 44% [with 41% of the precincts reporting, total caucus participation has not been released].

Allocation of the 126 primary pledged delegates were Clinton 65 and Obama 61. Allocation of the 68 caucus pledged delegates were Obama 38 and Clinton 29. Bottom line: Obama actually won 5 more pledged delegates than Clinton in Texas.

33.9 million people have voted to date. Only 1.1 million of them voted in caucuses.

In primaries, including Florida but excluding Michigan, Hillary leads in both votes and delegates. But the caucuses with their 1.1 million voters resulted in Obama getting 300,000 more votes and 193 more delegates.

The 13 caucus states count for only 74 of the total 538 Electoral Votes.

There are 187.5 million voters in the 47 states that have voted so far (not including MI or FL.) Hillary has won states with 104.9 million eligible voters and Obama has won states with 80.8 million.

Florida and Michigan have a combined 44
electoral votes and nearly 20 million eligible voters that cast a cumulative 2,345,000 votes -- that's twice the number of all caucus votes and roughly 7% of total votes.

If Florida and Michigan are added to the 47 state elections already concluded [34 primaries + 13 caucus states]there are 205.5 million total eligible voters [VEP]. Clinton has won states with 124.7 million eligible voters and Obama has
won states with 80.8 million. In this instance, Clinton would have won 19 primaries versus 17 for Obama.

What this means for Democrats: The pledged delegate total is not the end-all. Due to the skewed importance of the overrepresented caucus votes, many more factors need to go into choosing our nominee.

< Late Night Open Thread: Working Girls | What Is Going On At Trinity Church? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For the most part, in most cases (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    But not in every case, the more voters, the worse Obama does.

    Last night the myth Obama could win Idaho died. (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM EST
    He garnered less support than Ron Paul.

    We need to nominate Hillary, but all Hillary supporters need to understand they will only nominate her if she brings BO along for the ride.

    Not if he refuses the VP spot (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
    she doesn't -- and with his ego, I'm willing to bet that is exactly what will happen. Why, I have no idea -- the VP spot is the type of "all title, no work" job to which he seems ideally suited.

    That would be the dream situation (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:57 AM EST
    She gets the nom, offers VP to him and he turns it down.  She gets to pick a strong VP who will actually help her, and credit for riding the Unity Pony!

    I must agree (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:04:10 AM EST
    On both counts.  VP is the perfect job for Obama but one that he will see as beneath him.  

    "all title, no work" job (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by weltec2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:24 AM EST
    to which he seems ideally suited.

    I agree. Let him come along for the ride then if he is willing to accept the VP spot. I am so sick and depressed about this ridiculous voting system. This has got to be the last time we let the party do this to us.


    Wow, (2.33 / 6) (#24)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:02:12 AM EST
    Just. Wow. He's ideally suited to "all title, no work" jobs?

    I love it when people bandy about these sort of arguments. Say you just don't like him. There's nothing wrong with not liking someone. But that statement is simply not borne out in reality.

    Barack Hussein Obama,  black (mixed-race) 1-term US senator who was unknown at the national stage only 5 short years ago, is at the cusp of clinching the Democratic nomination for president of the USA. On his way he:

    1. Beat a 2-term senator and former first-lady of the United States
    2. Beat a 2-term highly popular former president of the United States
    3. Raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in history
    4. Has more donors in his primary campaign than any other candidate in history
    5. Has won nearly twice as many states, has more delegates and more votes (counting states where both remaining candidates were on the ballot) than his opponent
    6. He has weathered several serious scandals that would have knocked the wind out of a lesser candidate

    So, say you just don't like him -- no quibbles there. But for you to say he's suited for "all title, no work" jobs - that shows a lack of respect and an underestimation of the man. The very precise reasons your candidate is now forced to consider the VP post after claiming it will all be over by February 5th and that she's in it to win it.

    You think Obama has some serious (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:04:23 AM EST
    scandals? You ain't seen nothing yet.

    You think Obama has some serious (none / 0) (#120)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM EST
    Oh I agree with this statement. A meeting was held in Washington the 22 of May that talked about what is ahead with Obama and vetting him. Info about Obama's background that if you are I were applying for a high tech job that required  security clearence couldn't get one. The meeting will be in Youtube form soon.

    Speak English. (none / 0) (#151)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:33:08 PM EST

    Don't tell me what I think (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:07:54 AM EST
    He has "worked" 140 days in the US Senate -- total. He hasn't weathered any scandals -- the msm have ignored them & he has been bleeding support ever since -- he will not get off that easy against the GOP. He hasn't beaten anybody yet in this race. Get your facts straight first & show me one full time job he ever had where he accomplished something on his own, then try to tell me what I think.

    Whatever his experience is, he's brought (2.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:23:26 AM EST
    new and newly reengaged voters into the fold.

    Both of our Dem candidates have similar policy positions, but a key difference between Obama and Clinton may be the vastly different effect they would have on the number of new Democrats we elect to replace Republican obstructionists in Congress.  Hillary Clinton is the GOP's main Get Out The Vote strategy, even more so than their anti-gay, anti-choice strategies have spurred their followers to vote in the past. Right wing voters don't just dislike her, they actively despise her!  Alternatively, new and reengaged voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-20 new Democrats in Congress.

    That's a resume I'll vote for.


    find me some numbers to show that (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:54:16 AM EST
    Because right now, I don't see him helping any other Democrats.

    Overlooked Childers? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    who squeaked out a win by  distancing himself from Obama?

    New and newly teenaged (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:41 AM EST
    That's how I first read your comment. Seriously.

    Absolutely Freudian.


    what is your basis for this? (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:57:16 AM EST
    >>>but a key difference between Obama and Clinton may be the vastly different effect they would have on the number of new Democrats we elect to replace Republican obstructionists in Congress.

    That's not because of Obama! but because the Republican Brand is damaged.
    Obama can't even get the Senate Dems who've endorsed him to vote with him on legislation.

    Hate to break it to ya - but Obama is a Centrist not a God.


    are you talking about (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:51:01 AM EST
    the aa vote that was already there. you know the one swayed by false dog whistles? are you talking about the biased caucus system that is not democratic and is a scandal? are you talking about the fickle latte drinkers who can't be relied on for more than 24 hours? are you talking about the corrupt media who turns on a dime? are you talking about the so called youth vote who is more interested in american idol and their ipods than politics? and then you have the unmittigated gall to ignore the democratic base that has funded the dnc for years, done the heavy lifting and is being ignored for this fantasy island trip? dang, i still have that bridge in brooklyn for you.

    Why do you hate America? (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    And what do you have against lattes? If the so-called latte-sippers were driking cappuccinos would they garner more respect from you?

    Hate America? (none / 0) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:17:56 PM EST
    Shouldn't you be directing that one at a well known person in the Obama camp?

    "If the so-called latte-sippers were driking cappuccinos would they garner more respect from you?

    Well, how about we substitute winos for latte sippers?

    Would that make you feel better.


    dang, you do have some issues! (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:27:29 PM EST
    latte drinkers? i actually drink lattes. so what! i am talking about a group that has a certain mindset and you concluded i didn't like latte drinkers because of the latte. geez!

    Republican obstructionists? (none / 0) (#119)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:28:38 AM EST
    First of all, those people will not even signify without a Republican Executive and a majority in Congress.  Secondly, what difference if we get Democrats who are going to act like neoCons?  We still don't have a democracy.

    lol!~ @ 5 (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:09:23 AM EST
    . . . and more votes (counting states where both remaining candidates were on the ballot)

    That's funny.


    Please, please, please. Again, telling us why (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:49:33 AM EST
    she's bad, not why he's the best to be president.
    This site is, for the most part, positive and upbeat and so very informative. Please check your talking points and come up with why he's the most qualified.Thanks.

    Obama's accomplishments... (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:02:04 AM EST
    I mean, if I didn't know you were serious, I'd assume that it was a parody.

    Here are his actual accomplishments

    1. He's male
    2. He's black
    3. He can read someone else's words convincingly
    4. He does what the Daley machine (via David Axelrod) tells him to do

    Basically, he should be competing with Dennis Haysbert for celebrity product endorsements, not competing with Hillary Clinton for the Presidency

    Hehe (none / 0) (#154)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    And what have you achieved in your life?

    p lukasiak (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    is not the subject here.  

    Obama is the subject and he's accomplished nothing that would warrant consideration as President.

    If you're going to use childish arguments I suggest that you go soemwhere else and play with the Obamakinder.


    beat a two-term president? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:21:14 AM EST
    He beat a 2-term president at what?  Did they play a game of checkers?

    Obama has accomplished nothing in the US senate.  Although, he did take credit (lied) for two popular bills in the senate that he had nothing to do with.

    And, his entire legislative record in the ILL state senate was manufactured for him in his last year there by the ILL Senate leader Emil Jones to give him a resume to run for US senate with.  All important legislation was taken away from the legislators who actually worked on it and given to Obama to make it LOOK like he had accomplished something.


    It always seemed strange (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:04:08 AM EST
    that a newly elected senator would represent the Dems on the very important Ethics Reform bill which Obama has used to the max to present himself as "able to reach across the aisle."
    Most newly elected senators do not co-sponsor major bills - much less begin planning their presidential run during their first month in office (according to the Chicago Tribune).

    Harry Reid gave it away a couple of weeks ago on a Sunday talk show. He had "selected" Obama for the position. More evidence of the "fix."


    He beat a 2-term president in campaigning (none / 0) (#155)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    I thought Bill Clinton was supposed to be the standard bearer? The king of the hill (so to speak -- is that sexist?)

    Face it. He drank the Clintons' milkshake. Cleaned out their clock. If this were a cartoon, Hill and Bill would be pictured with rotating stars over their heads.


    what a bitter little obama fan you are! (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    running around here flinging insults and daring us. we dare!

    What have you been smoking? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:16:43 AM EST
    When did Obama
    Beat a 2-term highly popular former president of the United States
    He hasn't been in an election against Bill Clinton. If he had been, he would be gone by now. Bill would roll over him without even noticing. And he hasn't beaten Hillary yet, either. It must be nice to live in la-la land.

    And as for Obama's work record, he has 41% as many votes as Hillary in this Senate term. He hasn't bothered to do his job in the Senate, apparently it's boring for him. And the bills he claims to have passed in IL are a fiction. He had little to do with them, his name was put on other people's work to "give him credibility". You can't be given credibility, you have to earn it. Obama hasn't. And the bills he claims to have worked on in the Senate turn out to mean that he showed up for the press conference, but not the committee meetings that shaped and wrote the bills.

    And speaking of committees, his own committee, which oversees NATO, still hasn't had a meeting. Guess he was too busy running for President to do his job as a Senator. And by the way, that committee has a lot to do with foreign policy, which he seems to be very weak on. Personally, I don't think that hanging out with street kids in Indonesia is qualified as foreign policy experience. Working on the NATO committee and getting something done would. But that is a bit too much like work for Senator Obama to enjoy it. So he doesn't do it. Not the sort of work ethic we want in the White House. Sorry.


    NEWSFLASH....obama hasn't won anything yet (4.50 / 8) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:30 AM EST
    New Commentors are limited (none / 0) (#29)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:05:12 AM EST
    to 10 comments in a 24 hour period. You are at 16 in your first 2 hours.  Good night.

    What makes you think this is a new one?! (none / 0) (#32)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM EST
    It's probably ObamaMamaForHillary again.

    I know that (none / 0) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:09:22 AM EST
    but I it's just my way of digging a knife in.  I swear some of them come in with 3 names just to get past the 10 comment rule.  They all sound the same to me.

    I joked to someone earlier... 'why are you conversing with someone with that name?'  Alternative realitybites. :)


    Anyone who knew the dk user (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:31:15 AM EST
    of the same name would be shaking their head and laughing.  Good ol' RB and his one, single, solitary issue!  

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:51:49 AM EST
    >>>Beat a 2-term senator and former first-lady of the United States
    Beat a 2-term highly popular former president of the United States

    Your list of Obama's acccomplishments begins with "beating the B---h!" and beating the "first Black president."

    Should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that's what the elite Washington and media establishment envisioned when they propped up a newbie senator to run for president and allowed him to repeatedly trash the Clinton administration and falsely accuse the Clintons of racism.

    Obama has taught his followers that the only 2-term Dem president in 50 years did nothing for the Dem Party or the country and both he and his wife are EEEEEEVIL.
    That's been the basis of Obama's campaign.


    Seek help (1.00 / 2) (#156)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    all these things you list are interesting. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:31:01 AM EST
    i could and will contest quite a bit of what you write later. let me add this, what strikes me about all your writing is that there isn't one thing he has done for someone besides himself. there are no real actions for anyone else. it's all him. frankly, your writing is a red flag and you don't even know it.

    and you think that obama can raise a red cent afer november, then please pony up to buy that bridge in brooklyn i've had up for sale.


    I just don't get it (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM EST
    but according to Obamamites, Obama can win the presidency without FL, OH, NH, VA, or NV.


    And as you state - Obamedia has concealed or dismissed damaging info about Obama but the GOP won't.


    don't forget the democratic base. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    you know the hicks, bitters, gun clinging workers in america. they have been forgotten, BUT THEY WON'T FORGET IN NOVEMBER.

    Do you fall into that demographic? (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    Cos otherwise I see no reason why you would caricature what he said into something that could conceivably be found offensive. So do you fall into that category and somehow find your self feeling inferior?

    What (none / 0) (#158)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    he said was both offensive and inaccurate.  A demonstration that he knows nothing about this country.

    "Do you fall into that demographic?"

    You've really revealed yourself realitybites.

    Tell us will you what's wrong with "that demographic." Or is it THOSE people?


    he was offensive. his comments about (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:28:31 PM EST
    the workers are damx offensive. so take the hubris and can it.

    resume padding? (none / 0) (#141)
    by clbrune on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    a la Obama himself?

    He still hasn't beaten anyone.  The SD may seal the deal for him, though.
    He didn't run against a former president (duh)

    He has raised a ton of money.

    The vote count isn't clear.

    And he has not weathered anything significant.  The Right Wing Machine is going to rip him apart, if his "victim me" response is all he's got.

    (disclaimer: I actually kinda like him)


    Pelosi seems to think (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    this will be over on Tuesday:

    "I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention...It must be over before then."

    I'm still holding out hope.  Pelosi hasn't done much of anything.  I'm fairly certain she can't end this just because she says so.


    Obama less support than Ron Paul in Idaho (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by pcronin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:02 AM EST
    That's correct. Ron Paul got several thousand more votes in the Idaho primary (on May 27) than Obama ... our self-proclaimed Democratic nominee.

    Why? Because Idaho is deep red. Its one of the 6 caucus states that haven't voted Dem since 1964.

    As noted in my report:

      21 of Obama's 29 states-won are either caucus states or Red states - including 80% of the deepest Red that have not voted Democratic since 1964 to 1976. With a win in SD and MT, he will finish with 230 Electoral Votes - 121 of those from Red states.  Notably, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will start the race for the Presidency with 109 Electoral Votes from blue or purple states. That's 40% of what he'll need to win in November.

    In contrast, only one of Clinton's 20 states won is a caucus and only 26% of her total Electoral Votes are from Red states.  Further, 227 of Clinton's 308 EV are from blue and purple states meaning that she would start the Presidential race having won states that account for 84% of the EV needed to win the Whitehouse.
    Obama's "victory" as Dem nominee is hollow. He's not our strongest candidate. Hillary is.
    -- P. Cronin


    Ever heard of the 50 state strategy? (none / 0) (#8)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST
    or, more aptly, the 48 state strategy?

    58 states---please! (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:46 AM EST
    It was on the Dailykos rec list (none / 0) (#22)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:58 AM EST
    a while back ago

    I would like someone to explain to me (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:05 AM EST
    how this makes Obama the "more electable" candidate in the GE. Oh yea, I forgot, "electability" is no longer a metric for choosing the nominee. My bad.

    And job experience. Gone with the bath water. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    So, what are we supposed to base our votes on (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:34 AM EST
    now?  Nicest teeth?  Cutest kids?  Who looks best in a suit?  

    Did American Idol "Vote for the Worst" hijack our election process??!!  


    the problem is (4.25 / 4) (#19)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:56:24 AM EST
    Electability is a bit of a red herring. Certainly the SDs should be considering electability as important. But when the two arguments dove-tail it becomes more important.

    What I'm saying is that the Democratic party should be considering who among the Democratic candidates is the most popular among Democrats. It just so happens that the candidate who seems to be more popular among Democrats is also more popular among the general electorate.

    This shouldn't be a difficult decision.

    Alas, neither one of these two important metrics seems to be deciding the outcome.


    Actually, no ... (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:42:11 AM EST
    ... electability depends on all voters, not just on Democrats. That's why Clinton is more electable -- she leads McCain in overall popularity, whereas Obama trails McCain.

    See Gallup.
    See electoral-vote.com (Clinton vs McCain, Obama vs McCain).

    This is because Clinton is retaining the core Democratic base while attracting women from the Republican ranks.


    1968? (none / 0) (#39)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:11:18 AM EST
    Could we do what the party did then and nominate someone at the convention who never ran in a single primary?  Someone like Mark Warner of Virginia?  Then put Hillary on for VP.  

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#58)
    by weltec2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:31:29 AM EST
    Wasn't the original idea of having Super Delegates to avoid the Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, Stevenson losing nominee pattern that the Dem Party has fallen into.
    The numbers show that BO is at best a perilously  dangerous bet. The responsibility of the Super Delegates then is clear.

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#69)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:57:16 AM EST
    the argument against super-delegates, which is a reasonable argument, is that the will of the members of the Democratic Party should be paramount.

    It's a strictly (small d) democratic argument. In that sense, of course, it's a good argument and it's difficult to argue against it.

    The problem we have now is that we have arguments about who represents the opinions of Democrats and on top of that it seems the one person who seems to be the popular favorite (by some measures) is more popular in the general electorate. That's the problem. How can we possibly choose someone who isn't the popular favorite among Democrats and is less likely to win in November?

    Because of the various mistakes made we're stuck with the one person who doesn't meet either metric, so far.


    The problem with that is (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    the will of the members of the Democratic Party should be paramount.
    But it isn't. The will of the "Dems for a Day" are also being reflected in the votes for Obama. How many of them are going to vote for him in the GE, and how many of them are spoilers from other parties? So Obama's campaign strategy has ensured that the Democratic primaries DO NOT reflect the will of the Democratic Party members, it reflects the will of many people who are NOT Democrats. The SDs should also take that into consideration. That and the fact that Obama is not electable in the GE.

    Actually (none / 0) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    Humphrey was not a loser choice. Democrats were at a distinct diisadvantage. The public was fed up with the Vietnam War and disturbances during the Democratic convention probably sealed Humphrey's fate.  I believe without the disruptions at the convention Humphrey just may have pulled it out. Republicans hammered away at the disruptions.

    The election was close.  Nixon got 43.4% of the vote to Humphrey's 42.7% a difference of half million votes.

    The 1968 convention was before the McGovern commission which in effect changed the way nominees are selected. There were somthing like 15 or 16 primaries in those days.


    One Problem (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:43:53 AM EST
    Reuters/Zogby +26?!

    And remember, he's self-declared at this point, but untested.


    i'll make it simpe. the dnc has a (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:32:43 AM EST
    galloping case of american idol syndrone. they need to be fired. we need to clean up congress with this dead weight and cut off the lobbyist gravy train.

    What is interesting (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:55 AM EST
    Hillary probably did not do any campaigning in those states, and Obama with all his millions in TV adverts lost with bigger margins.  Sort of makes ya think.  

    This article makes me think obama has alot (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:10 AM EST
    more trouble coming his way.



    The DNC must have forgetten (none / 0) (#73)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:03:47 AM EST
    this old saying:

    "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned"


    make that voters, blue collar workers, (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:34:04 AM EST
    single mothers, latino voters, jewish voters, and all the others under the bus with us.

    I think it is quite clear (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:19 AM EST
    that Jeralyn is "arguing" no such thing. She's laying out the facts -- that it bodes poorly for Obama is his problem.

    Personally (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:13 AM EST
    I would argue that the Super Delegates should take caucuses with a grain of salt.

    This was predicted months ago (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:43:45 AM EST
    Warnings were made.

    If the warnings weren't heeded, there's not much else to be done.

    X (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:24 AM EST
    Dave's post is really startling in its conclusion: that if all those caucuses had been primaries, Obama's net delegate gain would have been 14, not 123. This is the whole difference right now, the caucuses. Without all those highly questionable caucus delegates, this race would "appear tied" to the media and everyone else, as it already appears to us. The fact that the popular vote count is practically a tie right now tells me that. Delegates are supposed to be closely tied to popular vote. The fact that Obama can have 160+ more when the popular vote is tied should be a red flag to everyone that the process is inherently flawed and does not reflect the will of the voters, and thus should not be slavishly followed by the SD's. But I'm sure Ferrarro is right - the SD's won't have the spine to do the right thing and go for the most electable candidate. Thus, we're looking at a huge loss in November. What a stupid, spineless party we belong to.

    There's the other factor, which is that (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:35 AM EST
    Hillary's voter to delegate ratio is higher than Obama's. That's related to the caucus/primary divide, but not the same thing.

    I'm not sure Obama voters (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST
    knew exactly what they were voting for when they pulled the lever for Obama. They were all for the Hope message and an African American president was the icing on the cake. The people fainting, tingles going up tweety's leg. How bad could he possibly be? His presidency actually sounded pretty good until reality set in. As did buyer's remorse.

    They may not flock en masse to her, but she'll get enough to clinch as soon as reality sets in with the rest of the party. Aping MLK does not make him MLK. Getting support from Ted Kennedy does not make him JFK.

    He had a great message and campaign but unfortunately, he was only the guy behind the curtain, the Great and Powerful Ozbama.

    If your interpretation of Jeralyn's post (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:55:56 AM EST
    is representative of your analytical skills, then no wonder you think Obama could win the GE.

    Here are two polls (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MisterPleasant on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:20:22 AM EST
    That make it clear the Clinton is the stronger GE candidate at the moment.

    The latest analysis from Gallup at

    And Electoral.com


    should also add (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:20:30 AM EST
    several of her demographics will vote McCain. Not en mass, but they won't all swing Obama, so he won't get the huge boost he would like. Pander doesn't work on women, blue collar workers, seniors, etc. Obama has not connected with them and McCain is not too scary for older moderate dems/indies/republicans that like Hillary's experience and fight.

    And then there's the Dem's that will just stay home or leave the top of the ticket blank and vote down.


    Hello, anybody home? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MisterPleasant on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:28:46 AM EST
    Check the two links I posted in reply to your post before you continue chattering about Obama's supposed electoral superiority.

    Not to be snarky (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by MisterPleasant on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:38:30 AM EST
    but you might ask Al Gore how that popular vote thing worked out.

    It does show up in exit polls (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:41:15 AM EST
    and any polls right now with him against McCain are pre-republican attack. How's he doing in those crucial swing states h2h? I think the national polls are worthless.

    One other thing, Hillary won't be around to deflect blame to in the GE.  ;)


    Check out (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:53 AM EST
    the dates they are including:  5/11 through 5/28.  That's more than two weeks.  In a few days, Obama will be LOSING to McCain while Clinton will still be WINNING.  

    Obama was the new flavor of the month but a lot of people discovered that they still love plain old vanilla.  


    Not trash talk for me (4.85 / 7) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:16:12 AM EST
    Can't speak for others, but I don't think he'll weather the republicans well, and even without them, his message is empty and getting stale. Notice how he can't seem to get the voters to rally around him even though he's been self-declared the winner several times now? If the  other voters were a-ok with that, Hillary would have been voted out by now. Her support is steady and her fund raising is still strong. And she's still getting strong turn out in "her" states even though everyone says it doesn't matter, doesn't really count.  why?

    He's shot his wad (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:19:17 AM EST
    And now the story is getting old.  People are not longer fainting at the mere sight of him.  

    eeewwww (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Newt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:30:10 AM EST
    That's just gross.

    The man has solid support.  Constantly belittling his supporters is not going to help in the GE.


    "solid" support (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    everything that happened before March 1 should be heavily discounted, simply because voters had no idea who Obama was, and as a result his negatives were very low.  Obama himself acknowledges that he's a walking, talking template upon which people projected what they wanted in a candidate, rather than a three-dimensional human being with a history and a record.

    Basically, until the 3AM ad came out, Obama was the idealized "generic Democrat" running against a known quantity with high negatives.  

    And much of the support he maintains right now is simply because the right-wing noise machine has not bothered to make much of an effort to go after him yet.  People seem to forget just how disciplined GOP messaging is --- and how undisciplined the Democratic party messaging is.


    The Keith Olberman Rule (none / 0) (#164)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:32:07 AM EST
    Shrug (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:27:03 AM EST
    I have concerns about Obama's electability based on political history and on conversations with any number of people who, by all rights, should be voting Democratic this year.

    What's interesting is when I hear real people tell me how they have serious concerns because of Rev. Wright or "bitter" or all the other things that the blogs assure me are just trumped-up gaffes that no one really cares about.  It just reminds you how out of touch with the electorate the average blog commentor is - and frankly, the average Democratic primary voter doesn't have the most awesome track record either.


    "insufficient support"? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:46:38 AM EST
    Have you looked at the results since March 1st? She has states that she can turn. Everything with him is a guess. They are guessing he can turn western states and it will make up for FL, MI, OH, PA, MA.

    Uh, thank you (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:01:44 AM EST
    I guess these people don't actually think that it might be worth noting that he's been losing the important, large electoral vote, swing states by double-digit margins.  

    Let's hope we win all those Western States instead!  They almost have as many as FL or OH all put together!  Gee, I hope he sure can pull ALL of them!  Oh Look, another Superdelegate just jumped on the bandwagon, now he Really can't lose!


    beam me up scotty (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:12 AM EST
    please come back to reality. We can correlate based on the polls and the RESULTS in key states that Hillary is the stronger candidate. It isn't just opinion

    logic (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:45:55 AM EST
    By what logic is the second place person deemed stronger than the first place person simply because the second place person hasnt given up yet?

    well, there is the logic of the electoral college, for one.

    And then there is temporal logic -- what was happened over time.  In the last three months, Obama has managed to win primaries in only four states, while Clinton has won 7.  She has been gaining support while Obama has been losing support in the overwhelming majority of significant demographic cohorts.  

    The logic of Hillary being a better candidate is the same logic that makes people progressive -- its complex logic that looks at questions in four dimensions.  The logic of Obama being a better candidate is two-dimensional Republican logic.


    Skepti (none / 0) (#145)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    Revamp the Process (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by GregNYC on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:41:07 AM EST
    This whole system needs to be revamped. The whole mish mash process has been embarrassing.

    Its not about the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by manish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:32:40 AM EST
    Hey Jeralyn,

    Thanks for tolerating me on your site.  I realize that I'm not going to convince you and your commenters aren't going to change my mind either, but consider this..this race is not about the popular vote, its about delegates..in the same way that the general election is about electoral college, not the popular vote (just ask Al Gore).

    I've volunteered on local campaigns and campaigns are about a lot more than the candidate and their stand on the issues.  Campaigns are about raising money, getting volunteers, allocating resources effectively, targeting voters for GOTV, messaging, etc.

    On that front, Barack Obama has run a brilliant campaign.  He has turned squeezing out delegates into an art form.  BTD had noted the unfairness in that districts with an even number of delegates needed a 62% margin of victory to get an extra delegate while odd delegate districts needed 51% for an extra delegate.  Obama targeted odd districts and only went after even delegate districts if they thought they could get 62%.

    Compare that to Hillary's campaign..Mark Penn is purported to have thought that winning California would give them all of those delegates.  It didn't.  Hillary has run an awful campaign..this was her election to lose and lose she did.

    Exhibit A is the Idaho primary.  There is no reason in the world why Obama should have won by such a margin and it has everything to do with a poor ground operation on the part of the Clinton campaign.  Trust me..caucus goers don't just show up by themselves, they are all about GOTV..clearly Clinton didn't have one.  Furthermore, there is no reason that Clinton should have lost the Texas two-step, other than incompetence on the part of her campaign.  Clinton had no trouble getting her supporters out to the Nevada or Iowa caucuses.  However, her campaign spent all their resources on trying to blow things out on Super Tuesday.

    And the writing was on the wall for a long time.  How on earth did Hillary spend $40 million to win re-election as a Senator in a blue state against a nobody challenger?  She should have easily won spending a fraction of that sum and she would have had that money for this election.

    You've noted on a number of occasions where Obama outspent Hillary on ads..well if she wasn't spending a fortune on Mark Penn, she would have had more money to spend on ads.

    However, instead of conceding defeat, the Clinton campaign is engaged in trying to change the metrics.  Its no longer about the rules that were there when the game started.  Its about seating MI and FL.  If we knew that MI and FL were to get all their delegates, Obama would have had his name on the ballot in MI and he would have campaigned like hell in those places to win.  He's shown that when he as the opportunity to campaign and introduce himself to voters, he can narrow the gap.

    If this was about popular vote from the beginning things would have been run differently.  For one, if we made it about popular vote, every caucus state would turn their elections into primaries.

    Same goes for the whining about the media narrative.  Do you think that McCain just woke up one day and the media just suddenly loved him?  Of course not..McCain has been working on his media image forever.  Getting the media on your side is hard work.

    If Hillary doesn't have a better GOTV operation (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:53:10 AM EST
    then why does she HAVE more votes?

    Less money, better results


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Lupin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:54:28 AM EST
    But Clinton does NOT have more votes.

    According to Real Clear politics:

    Obama 16,685,941
    Clinton 16,227,514
    Excluding FL/MI or caucus states

    With just Florida, still excluding caucus states:
    Obama 17,262,155
    Clinton 17,098,500

    Now you're free to apportion Michigan and the caucus states as you will, and depending how you do it, you may get + or - 50,000 votes ahead for/against the candidate of our choice.

    But you can't build an overwhelming convincing case based on that. The two are just too close.


    You say - (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:06:31 AM EST
    He has turned squeezing out delegates into an art form.

    Is that the new way of doing politics which is supposed to Obama's campaign theme?

    My take is yes, Obama has come so far because he has exploited the system better than Hillary. Hillary relied on the old fashioned way of winning votes and big states to boost her numbers, Obama relied on improving delegate count by gaming the system. According to me both ways are o.k but the larger question is who is the better Democratic candidate now that the race is literally tied up - the candidate who preaches one thing but practices another or the candidate who religiously worked to gain some credible experience and then staked her claim using her experience as her trump card.  


    exploited? (none / 0) (#147)
    by manish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    My take is yes, Obama has come so far because he has exploited the system better than Hillary.

    He exploited nothing..everyone knew the rules, he played to win.  The same goes for the general.  Its the electoral college that matters, not the popular vote (as we learned in 2000).  And there won't be any super delegates to appeal to either.


    Yes, Obama's forces in the Texas caucus's (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by The Realist on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:35:37 AM EST
    were the difference, but not for the reasons you believe. It would be acceptable if the Obama forces had conducted themselves in an honest and forthright manner, but as i personally witnessed, the precincts in my district failing to verify the attendee's against the voting rolls, showed up with caucus forms pre-filled out with names and steam rolled over alot of the elderly Clinton voters. My precinct went for Obama by a margin of 1 Del but it would have been much worse had the turn out for Hillary not been so high. We prevented those  pre-filled in forms from being used and insisted that the participants be verified by the rolls as having voted in the Primary. And, trust me, the poll workers were as useful as teats on a bore hog.

    My experience was similar. We were (none / 0) (#102)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:13:16 AM EST
    told no need to prove anyone had voted in the primary because, hey, if you're here to caucus, you must have already voted. We started 3 hours late and never "caucused." But hey, it's not about the appearance of fairness, or legalities, it's about "counting each vote" right!!!

    Changing the metric? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:16:38 AM EST
    I don't think so.  What you conveniently leave out is that, while the nomination is won or lost on the basis of delegates, the existence of superdelegates - who are part of that total needed for nomination - do not have to tie their votes to a candidate in any predetermined way; this means that the popular vote component can be part of the SD analysis.  As can electability analysis.

    I think that you are probably right that Obama would have stayed on the ballot in Michigan, along with the others who took their names off, had the DNC not imposed the 100% sanction.  But I think it's also fair to acknowledge that he saw it as an opportunity to make a strategic move he thought would benefit him - and more importantly, de-legitimize what would be Hillary's inevitable win there.  Her "strategy" was to remain on the ballot, stand for election, and let the voters speak, knowing - as all the candidates did - that Michigan would end up being seated at some point.  Clinton wanted to be able to make the irrefutable argument that votes cast for her should count, both in the legitimacy of the popular vote and in the eventual awarding of delegates.  The State of Michigan counted the votes and certified the election; not a single vote was cast for Barack Obama, and arguing that he should get both votes and delegates is, in my mind, as good an example of changing the metric as you can find.

    Elections are always about the votes, whether they are cast via caucuses or primaries - we can't award delegates without it.  Just because we've gotten used to presidential primary seasons where nominations are wrapped up early doesn't mean that metrics are now being changed or goalposts are now being moved because it's so close.  Had the DNC made their decisions about FLorida and Michigan on the assumption that their votes actually would matter, we would not be in this mess today.

    And that is where the ball was dropped, with the DNC.  They lost sight of what was important, and it is simply wrong to blame Hillary Clinton for reminding them - and us - that all 50 states need to be part of the nominating process.

    And, it is also wrong for Barack Obama to be sitting on his hands, refusing to accept responsibility for his own strategic move, unless you consider that making arguments that would have him taking votes and delegates he didn't earn is taking responsibility.

    The media?  Don't even go there.


    not sure (none / 0) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:41:55 AM EST
    I think that you are probably right that Obama would have stayed on the ballot in Michigan, along with the others who took their names off, had the DNC not imposed the 100% sanction.  But I think it's also fair to acknowledge that he saw it as an opportunity to make a strategic move he thought would benefit him - and more importantly, de-legitimize what would be Hillary's inevitable win there.

    I'm not sure that Obama would have left his name on the ballot, because the reason he took it off the ballot was to pander to Iowa voters.  It was essential for him to do well in Iowa for him to remain a credible candidate -- and if any other candidate had taken their name off the ballot to pander to Iowa voters, Obama would surely have followed.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#144)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    If she had won in Michigan with his name on the ballot, it could have affected the result in Iowa.

    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#149)
    by manish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    Clinton started the campaign with something on the order of 100 super-delegate lead and now Obama has made his case such that he leads in supers.  Any delegate can change their mind at this point (super or pledged for that matter), but the momentum has been with Obama..and I doubt that misleading numbers that conveniently forget that there were Obama supporters in Michigan or numbers that figure no one went to a caucus are going to persuade many super-delegates to go with Hillary.

    Wait a minute, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by dogooder on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:02 AM EST
    none of the Idaho, Washington and Nebraska primaries counted--all the delegates were awarded during the caucuses. So obviously there was no GOTV operation, etc., etc. Texas is the only true data point here.

    True data points.... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:12:45 AM EST
    Nebraska and Idaho are the two best data points, because they show us who rank and file democrats support -- unlike the Washington primary, the NE & ID beauty contests were part of larger statewide primaries, and the people who voted in the Democratic primary were the people that can be counted on to support Democratic candidates in the genderal election.

    WA vs. NE (none / 0) (#143)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    And yet the result from WA and NE were nearly identical - similar margins in the caucus, similar margins in the primary.  Should give some confidence that people who participate in "beauty contests" are representative of the electorate.

    texas has many problems with (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    the totally screwed up method of primaries that went on here. the caucus system was abused and poorly done. you can't count on anything valid from there. texas can't be held up as valid for anything right now except to go red in november.

    Why the Difference (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:13:10 AM EST
    Why does Obama do better in caucuses than in the popular vote?

    I think his popularity may have declined over time, but more important is the democratic nature of normal elections--or should I say, the undemocratic nature of caucuses.

    It's easy to vote in a normal election.  Everybody can vote once, and their voices all count equally.

    In a caucus, not everyone can participate.  You have to have a solid chunk of time free.  Not everyone participates equally.  People who are better-organized have undue influence.

    Caucuses tend to be dominated by activists and other people with lots of free time.  They aren't representative of Democrats in general.  The activists think that's just fine.

    Caucuses don't reflect how the general election will turn out.

    It's also easier (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:06:05 AM EST
    to game the caucuses.  There were numerous reports of dirty tricks in Iowa, Nevada and Texas. Then there's the intimidation factor in caucuses where votes are cast openly.  

    national polls are pretty (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by cpinva on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:52:09 AM EST
    meaningless, with respect to the GE. what counts are the individual states, because that's how electoral votes are garnered. this is a point both jeralyn and BTD have been making all along; you may have the national popular vote, but if your margin is from states with few electoral votes, you'll lose the GE.

    don't be so quick to discount the advantage the MSM's "lovefest" gave sen. obama, mostly in the early stages of the primary campaign, before people got a chance to know him for real. it made up significantly for his lack of name recognition.

    of course, the lovefest ends the day he (if he does) becomes the actual dem. nominee. something i'm betting his campaign hasn't planned for. sen. clinton doesn't have that problem, the MSM has hated her for 16 years now. for her campaign, it'll just be business as usual.

    with respect to the scandals he's survived, he actually hasn't. if you look at the pre & post wright data, it's clearly had an adverse impact on his campaign. that's before the republican 527's latch on to it, and other gaffes. they won't care what he calls them.

    not convinced (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Lupin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:43:45 AM EST
    I would be more convinced if I didn't see contradicting stats daily on both Real Clear Politics and Five Thirty Eight.

    Yes, some stats favor Clinton in the GE, but Obama  isn't far behind either, and in other metrics, he is ahead.

    Honestly, the "she's more electable" argument, while having some truth to it, does not strike me as so overwhelmingly convincing that it warrants throwing out the present situation in favor a mild hypothetical, not mentioning the political upheaval costs.

    The shorter version of your argument seems to be: Hillary is running a close second while Obama is next to last. It all depends how you choose to interpret the data.

    If you believe in the process, let it run its course, instead of suggesting it should be overturned.

    To let it run its course Obama should join Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by barryluda on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:00:29 AM EST
    now and insist that all of the votes in FL and MI are counted.

    he isn't going to do that. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    in my opinion obama has gamed the system from his early days in politics. witness getting other candidates removed from the ballot. and then his two contenders for the senate seat had personal issues that suddently became public. then he had keyes as his foe? please, my cat georgie could run a better race than keyes. all keyes does is run from time to time for contributions. it is sorta of his career now. he runs and makes outrageous comments hoping for a book deal and a few speaking engagements. what has obama run against? there you have it. now it is hillary,democratic base versus obama/dnc/pelosi,dean,reid,kennedy,kerry/media.
    the system is gamed everytime so far.

    FL and MI (none / 0) (#100)
    by Lupin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    Putting pressure on the DNC has nothing to do with respecting the process and let it run its course, quite the contrary. It is disruptive.

    But in any event, the votes WILL be counted. The apportioning of the Michigan votes is where they may be a disagreement.

    The most likely compromise fielded by the MI delegation (69/59) will not significantly boost Clinton's chances.

    So I don't really see how this is relevant.


    it's relevant (none / 0) (#112)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    Because his "winning" and momentum are only possible by deferring the value of MI/FL and treating them differently.

    The rules issues with selectively punishing MI/FL at zero OR half are the best possible outcomes for Obama.  And even if they mandate half for FL/MI, they're still breaking their own rules by not treating SC and others the same way.  Obama's opposition has been strategic from the get-go and is a rational choice for him that involves disenfranchisement.  That's relevant, because it shows he's a pol that values his campaign above principles.



    That's quite (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:46:30 AM EST
    the regression analyis. An r square of .9867. The correlation is strong. Obviously, the caucuses have consistently undercounted Clinton's support.
    Can we send this to the superdelegates?

    I am sending it to Peter Daou.

    Caucuses are our very own smoke-filled rooms (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:41:21 AM EST
    I think everyone here understands that there is only one metric that counts -- a majority of the voting delegates at the Convention. All the other arguments about "metrics" are aimed at swaying superdelegates, and frankly there are no truly "principled" arguments to be made, only political ones. If Ted Kennedy and John Kerry can support Obama despite Hillary winning the Massachusetts primary, then it's perfectly fair for Hillary to try to persuade superdelegates from Obama caucus states to support her notwithstanding.

    Caucuses do reflect party activist sentiment, whereas primaries are clearly a better gauge of voter sentiment. Caucuses are something of an improvement over the smoke-filled rooms of yore, as you don't have to be a paid-up Regular Party Member to participate, but historically true "outsider" or "insurgent" candidates have relied on primaries to prove their real strength to the Party Elders.

    But of course that's the real irony (largely lost on Obama supporters in the blogosphere), as it's Obama, not Clinton, who is the candidate of the Regulars -- it should be pretty clear that the Regulars were simply waiting to see which candidate would be the leading opponent to Clinton, and they coalesced around him. It helps as well that he was the official Chicago Machine candidate from the get-go.

    There is nothing "unfair" about this -- it may be stupid and wrong, but not "unfair". Stevenson got the nominations in '52 and '56 even though he was arguably a less "popular" candidate than Kefauver, and of course Humphrey won the '68 nomination even though he fared poorly in the primaries.

    On balance, I actually still think the Iowa caucuses are OK -- but anything after the New Hampshire primary ought to be a real primary, assuming we all agree that the best candidate doesn't emerge from the "smoke-filled room". After all, how many of you can name the 1924 Democratic nominee, the choice of the most famous "smoke-filled room"? (Hint -- it was one of the best episodes of "Profiles in Courage").

    theory.... (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:35:54 AM EST
    Caucuses do reflect party activist sentiment, whereas primaries are clearly a better gauge of voter sentiment.

    this is how things are supposed to work in theory...

    in practice, what has happened this year is that party activists have been pushed aside by hoards of Obama personality cultists who have no record of party activism.

    As for the supposed "brilliance" of Obama's strategy, it wasn't brilliant at all, because it was just as much of a failure at creating Obama as the consensus candidate as was the Clinton strategy.

    And when one accepts the fact that both candidates' strategy failed, you need to look at the question of why they failed to determine who is the better candidate.  

    Clinton failed because of of the weaknesses within the campaign.  Obama failed because of his weakness as a candidate.

    Campaign weaknesses can be fixed relatively quickly -- and Clinton has shown that she can fix a campaign that has problems.

    But a candidate's weaknesses can't be fixed in the short term --- nothing is going to change the fact that Obama lacks the knowledge and experience to be President, or that Obama's lack of any real accomplishments means that he will be defined by who he is, not what he has achieved.

    In other words, it will take years to fix Obama's weaknesses -- in eight years, he could run again with the exact same baggage he has now because he'll have something besides promises to run on.  


    The Democratic Party does seem (none / 0) (#123)
    by Elporton on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    to have a way of repeating its past mistakes.  While John Davis was clearly not the best choice in 1924, it was also obvious that it was not going to be Smith or McAddo.  Weren't there over 100 ballots taken?

    There's no question that the party's nominating process is jacked up but the goofy system is being followed.  With that said, it seems to me that Sen. Clinton has a legitimate case to make regarding her ability to win in November and the only place that case can be effectively made appears to be the convention in August.  Just like in 1924.


    103 ballots, I think, in 1924 (none / 0) (#146)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    Don't think we'll need quite that many this time around.

    Interesting that there are echoes of the McAdoo-Al Smith division of the Party in the Obama-Clinton contest.

    Mr Lukasiak, as always, has an excellent insight about what's really at issue -- the excellence of Obama's campaign and campaign strategy does not fully mask his failure as a candidate, most notably in Pennsylvania with strong front runner momentum. Hillary, by contrast, is a much stronger candidate than she was last autumn, after jettisoning Mark Penn's Third Way focus-group formulas and speaking forthrightly as an authentic Democrat.


    How dose the DNC RESTORE the faux momentum (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Salt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:17:27 AM EST
    they handed to Obama, momentum he did not earn restoring all times 2 would not undue the corrupting influence of the DNC on this Primary and Senator Clinton.

    450 Million dollars blown on a Dean Pelosi party building effort, that's fraud in my view..

    This ridiculous argument that a Clinton nominee turns over any ones will is propaganda that's the other piece of the shell game with delegates apportioned by the DNC  not on number of votes or any persons WILL, but weighted with only the DNC special blend of fake math.

    The Rulz committee cannot right this wrong they have committed against us, no matter what band aid and silly math they attempt to justify, THEY BLEW IT, and should be tossed out on their ears.

    The remarkable thing (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    about the Idaho result is that it is the sort of case in which you'd expect a priori that going from a caucus to a primary might increase his popular vote margin: one in which he won the caucus by a huge margin. In such a case, you'd ordinarily expect that if he won the caucus by a great margin, and that in any way reflected the general sentiments of the population, then in a primary, in which many more people show up, then his vote margin in terms of numbers of votes (as opposed to percentages) would rise dramatically.

    In fact, the opposite has occurred. And it's obvious why: his proportional win goes down so dramatically between caucus and primary that the increase in overall votes can't make up for it: he still loses votes.

    What does this suggest very strongly?

    That if the overall popular vote tally includes unadjusted votes from the caucuses, it is, in fact, far too generous to Obama. If Hillary's campaign nonetheless include those results unadjusted, they are doing him a great and undeserved favor.

    From the information presented... (4.50 / 2) (#42)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM EST
    there is no doubt that caucuses get a disproportional influence, yet represent the least will of the people.

    It's wrong that a caucus vote counts more in the percentage of delegates received.

    The system for choosing gets worse while the way the population is educated about the candidates and issues is no better.

    The system is corrupt and, in the end, we may need new political parties to step forward.

    Seems like this means obama will not fare (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:20 AM EST
    well in the GE...

    Quick! (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:02:38 AM EST
    Amend the Constitution and change the GE to a caucus!  It's our only hope to win with Obama!  

    Obama's weak nomination "win" (4.83 / 6) (#79)
    by pcronin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:47:54 AM EST
    The mydd calc and graphic results as boiled-down are important to note:

    Based on the caucus results in the above states, Barack Obama gained 295 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 158, a net advantage of 137 pledged delegates.  

    Reallocating delegates based on the primary results or an interpolation based on the WA-TX-NE-ID data, Barack Obama would have won 233 to Hillary Clinton's 219, a net advantage of 14.

    As noted in my report, 97% of the difference in pledged delegates - 148 delegates - is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests.

    And folks, here's the double-whammy: around 75% of the Super delegates in both primary and caucus states have already endorsed their chosen candidate. In the primary states ... Hillary still leads Obama in Supers by around 246 HRC to 221 BO.

    However, in caucus states the Supers have chosen Obama more than 3-to-1 over Clinton. The  distortion in the caucus vote spread ... has not only resulted in a disproportionate number of pledged delegates being allocated to Obama ... but the Supers are now adding to the imbalance  by believing those outrageous margins of caucus victory for Obama ... and are endorsing him based on the original error!

    Wow! How's that for democracy in action.
    -- peniel cronin


    Peniel - Your report is great (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by pcronin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    RE: Peniel- Your report is great

    I've tried to get it out as broadly as possible. Hillary's campaign has been sent a copy.

    If anyone has a list of media contacts I could contact, please e-me at penielc@cox.net



    Well that settles it (none / 0) (#20)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:56:56 AM EST
    The DNC will have to rewrite the rules of the GE so they we all use caucuses. They can do that, right?

    No, but Donna Brazile can n/t (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:59:39 AM EST
    Can anyone explain (none / 0) (#35)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:08:04 AM EST
    At the risk of announcing my ignorance, I would like to know the answer.  Why do so many states have primaries AND caucuses?  What is the point of that?  And why is it only democrats who do it?  Why can't we just let the people vote, like the republicans do, and forget the caucuses?  

    Thanks all.  

    Republicans do have a few caucuses. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:12:38 AM EST
    Dem's have a "can't we all just get along" candidate selection process.  Repub's have a darwinian process.  that's the real difference.  they do it winner take all in each state, with the electoral map as a guide, in an effort to find the strongest electoral GE candidate.  If we had that process, Hill would have won the nomination on TT.

    Thanks, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    That doesn't explain why we have to both caucuses and primaries.  Why aren't just primaries good enough?  Why do we have do overs with the caucuses after primaries?  To negate the votes of those who voted in the primary?  

    Because (4.50 / 2) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:20:37 AM EST
    the party wants more power over the nominating process.  Caucuses give the party more power.

    As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans know how to run their elections the right way.  Winner take all may not be the ultimate in fairness, but neither is the goofy proportionate delegate awarding system where you can actually win the popular election and lose the delegate count.


    Ok, the primaries after caucuses (none / 0) (#46)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:19:18 AM EST
    I really don't understand myself.  they are meaningless, anyway.  The caucuses are because they are supposedly "good for Party building" and they limit participation thus allowing a handful of activist to choose the delegation.  

    Oh, it's the elitists (none / 0) (#51)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:23:22 AM EST
    Who want to run things.  When we let people vote, they might do the wrong thing so it's better to have a way for the power people to overturn the will of the people.  

    IMO, that stinks.  Let the people vote. Period.  


    Then why pretend to let the people vote? (none / 0) (#56)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:27:04 AM EST
    It doesn't seem to be very democratic if the caucus can over ride what the voters have voted for.  Or am I miss understand this and it's really not as screwed up as it seems.

    Oh and those primaries have legitimate (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:21:57 AM EST
    races, i don't know why they also run the pres candidate names.

    and in most republican caucuses (none / 0) (#53)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:24:07 AM EST
    they have secret ballots.

    Depends on the state (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:45:22 AM EST
    I don't know the answer for Texas (and am not sure anyone can explain that cluskerf**k), but for NE it's because the Democratic party in that state wanted to move up their primaries to have more say in the nominating process.  Problem is that it requires a change in state law to move up a primary and the legislature wasn't having it - it's GOP control and they didn't feel like accomodating the NE Dems' latest whims.  So the party decided on doing a caucus on the cheap.  Which in itself was pretty much a something/something with inadequately trained staff and poor planning.  But the primary was still on the books and the party can't take the names of the candidates off the ballot (and there were other races that needed to be decided too) so ... there you go.  I assume ID and WA were similar - states wanted to move up and a caucus is cheaper .

    Ironically, if they'd kept the original date, NE and ID would have gotten tons more attention.  So in their effort to be more relevant, they became much less so. And disenfranchised voters.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:03:35 AM EST
    That is exactly what happened in Nebraska.

    No for WA on the primary date. (none / 0) (#134)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    WA was ordered by the Supreme Court USA to dump the blanket primary, so the open, top 2 primary became the LAW & the ROOOLZ.  It is now a useless beauty contest, of no value.  See my comment here: (link)

    The WA Dems chose to caucus in order to keep out the GOoPerz who cross-over, the Dems-for-a-Day & the Crush Limpbah ditto-heads.  Also, this primary legal battle wasn't settled until Mar 08, so the caucus made certain that there would be a result.

    They did not foresee the Obama skam, scheme, flim-flam of having college student dorm residents register in precincts, legislative districts & congressional districts with addresses at those locations (9 of them used a 1-bedroom house as a residence, for example).  The party regulars don't have the resources to track down all of these phonies, so the Chicago-style thuggery has worked.  Same all over, hunh?

    The problems are not with the system; they are with an IL machine-politics candidate using very destructive tactics to cheat the process--with lots of enabling from folks who want Bubba I (Bill) & Bubba III (Hillary) out in the same wilderness as Bubba II (Al Gore).

    The Obama campaign simply bought a photocopy of the Atwater-Rove Playbook & implemented all of the standard schemes: republikonz lite via Chicago where dead people still have the right to vote.


    whoa-- (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by stxabuela on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    The Obama campaign bussed in over 200 college-age kids to my city in TX and did the same thing, except it wasn't quite as effective because of our 30 days before the election registration rules.  I was working at the local party hq, literally next door to the Obama hq, and I watched it happen.  I honestly thought it was just an out-of-control regional organizer who lost his/her senses while campaigning, but it happened in WA, too?  I also saw hundreds of caucus sign-in sheets leave that office days before the election.  I'll never work in politics again--it was that sickening.  

    Even the credentials check can't work . . . (none / 0) (#140)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    . . . in many states, the voter can contact the County office & change place of residence a few days before a caucus or a primary & then show up at that event & sign the roll as if . . .

    All of the states that have "open" absentee voting (meaning you don't have to give a reason for being absent) allow almost immediate changes of residence.

    This is just Chicago-style thuggery in all of the caucus states.

    My point is that even careful, conscientious precinct & county officers cannot effectively stop this gambit--it's foolproof.


    answers... (none / 0) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:11:47 AM EST
    Every state has primary elections, because every state needs to determine who will be running in the General election.  In NE and ID, the state primary includes the "presidential beauty contest"

    Washington state is the only one that holds a separate and distinct "Presidential primary beauty context" because voters in Washington wanted a primary rather than caucuses, and a ballot initiative was passed creating such a primary election.  But because the Democratic Party is a "private" organization, it cannot be required to choose its delegates using the primary that the law allows for, and WA political hacks defied the will of the voters, and insisted upon maintaining the caucus system because they (ostensibly) had more control over the outcome of the caucus procedure.

    The GOP was a lot smarter -- their WA delegates are split between the caucuses and the primary.  

    The Texas caucuses are an anachronism -- they are all about 'party building' -- but this year, the way the caucuses were handled everywhere but in Iowa have actually damaged the party, because caucuses were overwhelmed by people who have no interest in the fortunes of the Democratic Party as such, and rank and file Democrats who have been involved with the Party for years were treated disrespectfully by the Obamagoons.


    Please check my comment above. (none / 0) (#135)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    WA, LA, CA are following decisions by the Supreme Court USA.  I think some of the other states (NE, NJ, FL, perhaps more) are following decisions by either state courts or lower federal courts; many of the Deep South states are following decisions based on the Voting Rights Act which controls, if memory serves, about 18 states.

    None of this is as it "appears."


    Primary (none / 0) (#118)
    by abiodun on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:19:40 AM EST
    Reconvene the DNC rules committee;
    Throw out the rules agreed to before the start of the primaries/caucauses;
    statements made about FL and MI were never made;
    create new rules;
    candidates adopt new strategies for the contests;
    start from Iowa again;
    Candidates will know that caucaus states matter and nomination will not be over on super tuesday;
    revote in FL and MI;
    all previous gaffes by all candidates did not happen;
    erase Rev Wright;
    (Did I forget anything?)

    Then the whole process will be fair to all candidates!

    Here are the rules (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    You can spout Obama primary talking points all you want.  You are going to have to face GE reality sooner or later.  Here's a list of Repub Obama GE talking pts

    Dismiss the voters, manipulate and bully in caucus states, complain incessantly, trick people in to believing absolute inexperience is Hope, pre-selection by elitist DNC, preferential treatment by DNC

    New name for Obama in a recent article: Gaffe a day express

    You can trot out the same talking points over and over, they don't matter.  What matters is he is no longer the One American Idol.

    Here are the real rules as opposed to the Obama roolz..... to be used against Obama in the GE.

    The Repubs aren't going to play Obama's little game with Obama roolz.

    Obama supporters need to stop complaining and start proving themselves as the new, more dedicated, Democrats of the New Democratic Party... start donating to Obama's GE campaign and donating to the DNC.


    you think Obama has some serious (none / 0) (#121)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    Oh I agree with this statement. A meeting was held in Washington the 22 of May that talked about what is ahead with Obama and vetting him. Info about Obama's background that if you are I were applying for a high tech job that required  security clearence couldn't get one. The meeting will be in Youtube form soon.

    Beauty contest primary (none / 0) (#148)
    by diogenes on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    Come on.  With the media anointing Obama as the presumptive nominee, Obama supporters weren't that motivated to vote.  Hillary and her supporters had much more at stake here with the popular vote themes.  
    As far as gaming the system goes, don't we want a president who knows HOW to game a system and can organize a staff that can efficiently do so?  After all, international treaties and passing bills in Congress are just big games too.