home

Updated Caucus-Primary Statistics : Through June 1

Hot off the press and only available at TalkLeft: Peniel Cronin's revised Caucus v. Primary report with numbers updated to today, showing how the caucuses, compared to primaries, have unfairly disenfranchised voters. (Background and original report here.)

I want this report to get as much exposure as possible. Thus, this post will stay at the top of TalkLeft for several hours. New posts will be below it.

Some Findings:

  • 35.6 million people have voted
  • The 37 primary states account for 97% of the vote.
  • The 13 caucus states account for 3% of the vote.

Bottom line: Clinton’s lead is from 34.5 million voters (97%) in Primaries. Obama’s lead is from 1.1 million voters (3%) in caucuses. [More...]

Out of the 50 state elections so far, Clinton has won 20 primaries and Obama has won 17. In comparison, Obama has dominated the Caucus contests by winning 12 of 13, plus the Texas caucus. 42% of his wins are caucus states.

...After 50 election contests to date, Obama leads Clinton by 113 pledged delegates. 97.4% of the difference – 110 delegates – is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests.

...In the 37 primaries, Hillary Clinton is up 500,000 votes (counting Florida and Michigan and giving Barack Obama 75% of the votes of Michigan's uncommitted delegates.) This give her a 67 delegate lead in the primaries. In the 13 caucus states, Obama is up 300,000 votes which has resulted in a 205 delegate lead.

The electoral map:

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 plus Puerto Rico 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.

There's much, much more. Read it, and if you know a superdelegate or how to contact one, send it along.(But don't put e-mail addresses in comments here.)

Ms. Cronin's original report is here. About Peniel Cronin, from my first post on her report:

Peniel Cronin is the President & CEO of Global Basics and eNameWiz.com. Cronin holds a B.S. in Accounting from Arizona State University and has 16 years experience as an accountant and Director of Marketing for several SMEs.

Cronin directs all strategic development and product/market research and developed the algorithms and database that power the eNameWiz multilingual domain creation and search system.

Representative clients through Global Basics have included the Arizona Office of Tourism, the Nevada Commission on Tourism, the Arizona Shopping Consortium, Shop America Alliance, America West Airlines, Southwest Airlines, AeroMexico and numerous other travel and domain industry organizations. Cronin holds three US & German Patents, several trademarks and numerous copyrights.

Cronin suffers from a disability resulting from a car accident 40 years ago at age 12 which left her "wheelchair bound" for two years, at a time when there were no curb cuts or ramps and nothing was accessible. This is what fueled her passion about the caucus information. She knows what it's like to be locked-out of the mainstream and to be excluded from full participation in what others take for granted.

Update here. Comments now closed.

< SD and MT Polls | Ted Kennedy Surgery A Success >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    this is about as stark a (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    reflection as one can have of sen. obama's electability vs. sen. clinton's in the GE. numbers tend not to lie. will anyone besides those of us in here actually look at them though?

    Perhaps he's going to try to get the GE (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    changed from a vote of the people to a caucus this time.


    [ Parent ]
    Or (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    maybe the DNC is planning to have a "Chicago Smackdown" (as Obama himself calls it) in the GE?  All those dearly departed rising up to vote--maybe that's why they call him the Messiah.

    [ Parent ]
    What is that cornerstone phrase in (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:31 PM EST
    Engineering:

    "In G_d we trust, all else bring data."

    [ Parent ]

    cpinva -- a quiet yet topical moment here (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    Since you appear to be the techiest person at TL, I thought you might be a good brain to pick for this.

    I was theorizing that much of Obama's early success back in January, which his campaign cannily ginned into an avalanche which wheezed to stop in the pre-PA doldrums, hinged on a meeting of tech -- a wider spread of iPhones, texting and plans -- and age group: first time voters.

    This gave the Boss-style (and bossy!) Obama Machine booties on the ground to stuff caucus sites.

    Assisting this effort by helpfully getting the word out to create Dems for a Day was, of course, the fauxgressive blogs.

    (Happily megaphoning it all was a media only too happy to revisit their gum-snapping gossip chewing days of gossiping about the Clintons.)

    Presto-bango: a "movement", only it isn't, based on way too much smoke.

    It's a conceit that phone/texting was unheard of among bitter clingy old racist women like myself, as I've been beaming it off my PDA and palmbook for a decade now. But then, I'm not that Mac commercial cutie pie who's braggin on decade-old tech like they tend to do. (In my favor, I'm no Hodgeman, either.)

    Thoughts? I think this is still topical. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with this... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:50 PM EST
    and don't forget that Moveon.org endorsed Obama very early.

    Presto-changeo, built-in organization that Obama could then claim for himself.

    [ Parent ]

    Cream City had a good post up about this ... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    I'm going to go back through my archives. She posited that Obama was basically a six-week phenom. It came to mind immediately as I read Jeralyn's top post.

    It becomes more starkly evident with the numbers presented, and the monthly totals Jeralyn posted in a earlier FP.

    It's certainly not something the Cheetoh place, the MSM or the Obama fans at the "new" Dem party would come up with but the information and events, but it's the equivalent of the lights being turned on after a hard party. And bleccch.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting observation.. (5.00 / 3) (#237)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    in a word or two, Obama's supporters are basically a "flash mob". And they think the rest of us are out of the loop. I wonder if their interest in Obama will survive the "fun" part of the campaign.

    Why do those kids think we don't know what we are doing on the net? Who do they think put the internet together in the first place?? Hello??? Someone should tell them that the world didn't start the day they were born.

    [ Parent ]

    So.... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by g8grl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    After 50 election contests to date, Obama leads Clinton by 113 pledged delegates. 97.4% of the difference - 110 delegates - is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests....and another 4 are due to stealing.


    More than that ... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    may be the result of stealing if we're to believe some rumors about the caucuses.

    [ Parent ]
    Since he does not lead the popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    now, your post makes no sense.

    [ Parent ]
    That has been analyzed? (none / 0) (#193)
    by clbrune on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    I haven't seen any such analysis.  All I've seen is that when you compare results from states that have both caucus AND primary, Obama does much more poorly than Clinton, in all instances (Texas is the most alarming where Clinton won the primary by over 100,000 votes, yet the caucus left her with fewer overall Texas delegates).

    [ Parent ]
    Further Illegitimacy (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    Don't forget the disproportional representation in the primaries - some districts get bonus delegates based on past voting patterns.  

    Not all districts are created equal.  Meaning that some voters really count more than others.

    The disconnect between pledged and popular just gets larger as a result.

    And importantly for Obama, the African-American communities, reliably Democratic in the past, are rewarded with over-representation in pledged delegate allocations.  

    As Hillary won many red districts, she did not get an equal pledged return as she would have in the inner city.  So much for reaching out to new voters - she actually paid a price for that.


    [ Parent ]

    I actually read (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    that Donna Brazile proposed that new rule and then tutored AAs that if they voted in a bloc they could control the nomination.

    I bet if Hillary Democrats voted in a bloc, they could control the WH and have a mandate in the McCain administration for moderate policies.  I'm going to test that out.

    [ Parent ]

    Bonus Points for Some Districts (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    The rule makes no sense - and gives candidates no incentive to reach out to new voters and districts.  Your efforts will net you fewer delegates.

    But Donna would like this - the bonus structure of the primaries.  

    Such a rule will always favor demographic groups who live together and vote Democratic - African-Americans, but not women, for example.

    [ Parent ]

    But someone said the mailing lists made (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    caucuses worthwhile - so...  There you have it.

    If "someone said it" it must be (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    so!!!

    [ Parent ]
    You know what is most troubling about (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    this whole caucus thing?  It seems like a lot of Obama supporters think that because they love Obama so much that they think he will win a lot of votes.  Like they think that their extra super support translates into something more than their one vote, but votes are not counted (except in Texas) based on extra super support versus tepid support.  My vote for "The Democrat" will count just the same as a vote cast by a devoted Obama or Clinton supporter.  It will be no more or less valuable.  So some Obama folks look at these caucus results and try to extrapolate their enthusiasm and that of of the party activists who participate in caucuses as if they will amount to something more than just over a million voters - many in ultra conservative states no less.

    [ Parent ]
    You're forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    that Obama gets psychic votes -- see Michigan.

    The OFB faction of Obama supporters are counting on those psychic votes for the general election too.

    Little do they know that the Republicans have their own "psychic friends" -- aka 527's!

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    They are deluded about the size of their coalition. This report shows just how small it really is.

    If enthusiasm were all that mattered, well...I'll bet our Presidential elections would have looked a lot different over the past 50 years.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah with ballots that allowed (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    you to rate your support for a candidate on a scale from one to ten or something.

    I was telling my Mom about a story I saw a while ago about "Obamacans" where they featured some guy in Texas who had started an org called Republicans for Obama or something like that.  The story went on and on about how Obama was really touching Republicans etc. etc.  Then towards the end of the story - as a throw away line - the reporter said something like, "And with 300 members..."  Rolling eyes.  300 Republicans?  Sheesh.  McCain may be poised to pick up more than 300,000 Democrats in the Appalachian region!  Oy.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama supporters my be a drag on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by clbrune on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    The single worst thing about Obama for me are his Cultists.

    Setting aside the notion of Democrats voting for McCain, look at undecideds:  will they really be swayed by vague rhetoric? Will they really be attracted by the words of Obama's loyalists ("He's GREAT, why don't you UNDERSTAAAAAAND??")

    If they can turn me off, they can turn off a lot of others.

    [ Parent ]

    The Democrats in those states (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    must be like a red headed step child who's been locked in the basement for twenty years.

    I can't imagine the hell they go through in those areas with their political philosophy under constant attack.  They must turn into extremists of one sort or another very quickly because they are denied an institutional anchor to any real power.

    [ Parent ]

    Low information voters (5.00 / 3) (#241)
    by makana44 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    You know they talk about low information voters like they're all uneducated hicks in Appalachia. Let me tell you something, highly educated, highly successful people are often way too busy to get caught up in the minutiae of politics. There are so many doctors, surgeons, dentists in my family and extended family, they could staff a clinic for a small city. These people don't have a clue. They spend their time doing very consuming jobs, like healing the ill, doing surgery, working long hours, traveling to and attending meetings, doing research, and making lots of money (and going on vacations). This takes enormous attention and energy.

    You mention the word "blog" to most of them, and their eyes glaze over. We were always liberals and democrats in my family (urban Jews from NY, MA, OH, FL, CA). None them voted for Bush in the last two elections (let me rephrase that, none of them admits to voting for Bush in the last two elections. I have my suspicions.) But all I hear from this crew is McCain's a pretty good guy, really moderate, yada yada. They'd all vote for Hillary, but Obama doesn't appeal. These aren't racists or hicks. These are liberals and moderates. They aren't' political junkies. They talk back to me in complete sound bites and headlines, with no depth at all. Professionals. Making lots of money. Low information voters. Obama may have left Trinity Church behind, but he's already branded so it doesn't make a difference. McCain is branded, too. So is Hillary. I'm just rambling here but I'm telling you, for a whole swath of "low information" (and low involvement) moderate Democrats, if it isn't Hillary it's McCain. This is very unscientific polling, I admit. But if it's any indication, Obama doesn't seem to register. He's just some first-time stranger out of nowhere who they never heard of before and, if you haven't drunk the Kool-aid, who cares?


    [ Parent ]

    Lakoff on Diane Rhem (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kateNC on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    Framed caucuses as the more democratic than primaries.

    He was very partisan about it in that cool professorial voice.

    I do wish you'd send this post to the Diane Rhem show on NPR.

    Lakoff's a linguist... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    I seriously suggest that he go back to his academic analysis of frames and stay out of partisan hackery.

    Sheesh...

    [ Parent ]

    The caucus system has a lovely feel (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    of democracy in action, but I think it is out of step with our modern society and the size of our population.  Not to mention the fact that people aren't given the option of not disclosing their vote preference - which isn't a problem until it is a problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Feel |= actuality :-) (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    I just sent Lakoff a very nice letter suggesting that his "framing" misses the mark re: reality.

    [ Parent ]
    You raise my curiosity (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    How is it that caucuses aren't unConstitutional? I thought Americans have the right to a secret ballot?  Or is that only in the GE?

    Really, we need to think up a way to have elections that excludes political parties.  The parties in this country have gone barking mad.

    [ Parent ]

    It is a party nomination - not a (none / 0) (#233)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    general election.  The states have traditionally had a lot of power in the processes they use in nominating candidates.  Don't forget that Senators were at one time selected by state legislators.  The popular vote standard is a more modern interpretation of our democratic principles.

    Sending delegates to a convention is the only way to handle the mish-mash of state nomination systems that we have.  In theory we could just hold standardized primaries in every state and do away with delegates all together.  That won't happen anytime soon though.

    [ Parent ]

    Less Democratic (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    I wrote about this yesterday:

    Obama has gained a lead in pledged delegates from caucuses which deny the military any real option in participating.

    The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan could not participate in caucuses.  Absentee ballots can be cast in the primaries.

    How could this party select a Commander in Chief whose delegate margins were won where soldiers could not participate?

    This is an objective disenfranchisement of the active military in a time of war - and in an election that is very much about the war they are dying in.

    I would not celebrate these caucus victories at all.


    [ Parent ]

    Nice try at deflection. (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    What is your answer to the report's conclusions?

    The answer is (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    That we need to overhaul our nominating process for 2012.  

    I am all for blowing up our nomination process top to bottom and creating a logical, fair consistent system.  

    Unfortunately this has no bearing on the current nomination.  Clearly the superdelegates aren't impressed by these arguments and we will have a nominee in the next couple of days.

    All this "we wuz robbed" rhetoric is going to make it harder to come together when the time comes.  It is also building up the following circular logic:  1) We are fools to nominate Obama since he can't win; and 2) And just to prove this point I'm going to stay home or vote for McCain.  


    [ Parent ]

    Something else that makes it harder to come (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    together is condescension.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not the answer at all. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    The answer is, we should nominate the person who is most likely to win. That is the whole point of the nomination process.

    Based on the numbers, that's not Obama.

    You cannot refute these numbers, so you circle back to "Shut up and vote for Obama!!111!!!"

    I can tell you this much: All the Democrats in the US could vote for Obama, and unless he gets some portion of the Independent vote, he will STILL not win the GE.

    Do you have any idea how much of a handicap he will be starting with if his "take-for-granted" EV is so small?

    Meanwhile, HRC already starts with 227. All she needs to win the GE are 44 EV.

    Don't you like those odds a little better?

    [ Parent ]

    Last time I checked (none / 0) (#155)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    the point was to nominate the person with the majority of delegates.

    In 2004 I had these electability arguments shoved down my throat when I was supporting Howard Dean for president.  People pointed to Kerry's numbers against Bush and called me a fool for supporting Dean.  

    That election taught me that nominating a candidate based on a fuzzy prediction of how someone else is going to feel about that candidate is dubious at best.  

    We were told Kerry was head and shoulders the most "electable" Democrat in 2004 and that exploded in our faces.  There are lots of great reasons to have supported Clinton but that has never been one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually the express purpose of the (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    SD"s is to nominate the person who can win in November. In a race this close, it goes exactly against their purpose to base their decision on the pledged delegate count.

    [ Parent ]
    I think predicting electability is (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    like engaging in alchemy, but I do think that identifying points where someone has a problem with electability is possible.

    For instance, I thought Kerry was less electable than Dean because he offered little to no contrast to Bush other than boasting that he would have "plans" and that they would be "smarter".  Which brings me to what I perceive to be Obama's problem - he is not going for stark contrasts.  He keeps harping on this notion of a post partisan Washington and claiming that he will bring everyone together.  So far, his camp is failing miserably on the unity front where it comes to Clinton supporters and the Republicans will NOT fail to exploit that failure on numerous levels.  The Republicans will also make it clear that they will NOT be friendly with Democrats and I believe that that will make them look better, stronger and tougher than Obama.

    Clinton has her own "issues", but I think stronger and tougher are not on the list - and I also think that tougher and stronger is always a key element to any presidential win - no matter what the top issues of the campaign are - people like to think that the guy or gal that will be leading them is tougher and stronger than anyone else they had to choose from.  Dean had that appeal for me.

    [ Parent ]

    voting is the product of cultural patterns. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    we've seen that time and time again.
    Dean would have been even easier to beat.  i'm not sure if anyone could have beaten Bush that year. Except bill Clinton I suppose.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean would have been beaten even worse. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    the election immediately after 9/11 was always a rear guard action.

    Also Kerry v Dean

    Both New Englanders. Both a bit out of touch and aloof. Same fate as Dukakis with either one.  A lost election.

    The Democrats don't see it bu tthey are a regional identity party --Only aristocratic New England or Ivy League need apply for the top slot. Dean even mentioned a mayflower conection to Bush in a vain attempt at the blueblood card.

    What the Dems need is a vulgar liberal southerner at the top of the ticket.  that's all.  It's a simple concession to the south that would result in us winning election after election.

    but you stuck up blue noses don't see it yet.

    btw, I speak with a Home Counties English accent. In the UK it's the reverse--labour is a scottish and Welsh party with scousers and mancs making up the numbers. The Labour party loses when they have Welsh or Scots as the leader but win with guys who speak the queens english as their front men.

    [ Parent ]

    No, the point is not (none / 0) (#209)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    to nominate the person with a "majority of delegates."

    The point is to nominate a winning candidate. Period.

    There is a "magic number" for a reason. A simple majority will not gain a candidate the nomination. If we examine the numbers contained in this report, we will find that a majority of Obama's delegates have come from caucuses in deep red states.

    You either genuinely don't understand the process or you are just trying to sow confusion.

    Either way, I don't appreciate it much.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry WAS more electable than Dean (none / 0) (#239)
    by Shawn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    I didn't support either one of them for the nomination, because their liabilities were pretty much the same - they were both upper-crust New England liberals who couldn't connect with the working-class. But Kerry at least looked and talked like a president; Dean's demeanor was somewhere between a pro-wrestler and a frat president. He would've lost 35-40 states and made Bush's claim to a mandate look much more convincing.

    The "electable" candidates, IMO, were Edwards, Clark and maybe Gephardt. But I still don't get the argument that because Kerry lost, Dean would've somehow won. Dean was basically Kerry on steroids.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, unless Hillary concedes, we (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    will NOT have a nominee til August.
    Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]
    And... (none / 0) (#169)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:58 PM EST
    And can you tell me what the result was when a candidate refused to concede and took the nomination to the convention?  I'll help you with this...it happened in 1968, 1972, 1980 and 1988.

    So keep this going until August if you want but be clear what you're doing and it won't be helping to elect a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, I'm just trying to correct you (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    on the facts. I think if Hillary takes it to the convention she can win the nomination.
    Obama continues to fall in the polls, and continues to be dogged by bad news about his closest associates.
    I expect Obama will be quite a tarnished product by August.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#190)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    And if Hillary successfully takes the nomination at the convention she will not only lose in November she will risk fracturing the Democratic party coalition for a generation.  

    In that scenario I myself would absolutely support her as the Democratic nominee but she could easily lose much of the half of the party who supports Obama.

    It's her choice since nobody can make her concede, but I would implore her to rethink that strategy.  

    [ Parent ]

    the die is cast. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    sorry.  This is an organizational failure that Dean was hired to fix.

    he broke it even worse.

    [ Parent ]

    The wishbone is already broken (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    Why not be left with the bigger piece?

    And to be honest, I have a LOT more faith in Hillary's ability to unify than Obama's (witness her silencing the boos during her speech in PR, as opposed to Obama's own long silence when the boos happen if he mentions Hillary.)

    [ Parent ]

    The party is already fractured. (none / 0) (#198)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    Obama is doing nothing to heal the party---quite the opposite in fact, as shown by the farcical RBC hearing. In my opinion, he is taking the party towards a catastrophic loss in Nov.
    Some Obama supporter had the gall to say that Hillary should concede, just as Gore did in 2000.
    Sorry, I want her to fight---the stakes are too high.

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot 1992 (none / 0) (#191)
    by Shawn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    Jerry Brown didn't concede until the convention either.

    [ Parent ]
    Look, Democrats are really good at (none / 0) (#219)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    losing elections. To put the blame on people who took the nomination to the convention is not a convincing argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Data, Folks, Calm Down (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    The point is the data for the SDs - who, until recently, were charged with picking a electable nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow gaming the system really has paid off (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    for Obama but in the long run is the ultimate loser in the general election....That is amazing those numbers and I plead with someone to forward them along to the super delegates....If I were stronger (health wise) I would do it myself...

    Including Byrd & Rocky (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    I can not believe that two very wealthy Senators would go against the voter's wish in their state. It is like saying to their people "You aren't smart enough to know who to vote for. Therefore we are voting the way you should have voted".

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention Kennedy and Kerry (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There's a precedent for ... (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by NotThatStupid on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    ...what you said here:

    It is like saying to their people "You aren't smart enough to know who to vote for. Therefore we are voting the way you should have voted".

    ... after the what RBC did on Saturday.


    [ Parent ]

    Wow that is amazing and someone (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    needs to get the word out immediately....If I were stronger health wise I sure would...Thanks for that information Jeralyn...

    Evidently you don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    The DNC knows how those who could not caucus would have voted. I don't know why you can't understand this Jeralyn? The DNC knows how people think.

    Just a thought on "popular vote" (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    Interesting report. Since the term "popular vote" can be distorted by adding in all sorts of superfluous factors, maybe we should stop using the term and switch to something like "votes received" consistently. This would make it clear you cannot add in votes not earned.

    How about we exclude the caucus (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    popular vote, as long as we're excluding Michigan's popular vote!

    [ Parent ]
    Controversial (none / 0) (#41)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    That would be controversial since he obviously did get some votes there. If you stick to votes actually cast I don't see how anyone has a moral right to argue (but they will of course). Everything except votes cast is guesswork. Unfortunately we do have to rely on estimates for 4 caucuses (the RCP 110,222 for IA,WA,ME,NV) but these are low in total and any discrepancy won't affect the outcome. If anyone argues, switch to using the WA primary (much better for HRC) and leave out the other 3.

    [ Parent ]
    But then, there are those pesky write-ins (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    and now, when we write in Clinton, we will really have meant Obama -- and even in states where write-in ballots are not counted by law, they must be counted as for Obama.  So says the DNC, on the basis that the DNC staff astrologer has so divined some tea leaves or cloud formation or whatever as saying so.

    If it's good enough to treat MI that way -- 30,000 MI voters, more than his lead in one RCP category -- it's good enough for the country.  Pretty soon, we can dispense with ballots and caucuses and even human intervention, and we can just revert to pagan rituals and read the clouds for results.  

    You okay with the DNC astrologer counting those for Obama, too, along with the caucus estimates from states that didn't even count caucusgoers?

    [ Parent ]

    The "fix" is in. I don't know (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    why, perhaps our "elected officials" are drinking too much kool-aid. Perhaps the lens through which they look is skewed. Hillary has earned the ears of the SD's and the consideration of their vote as well. We all know what this is about..and it's ugly!!!

    Yeah, I just (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    do believe too that the fix is in.

    It became apparent just how much that was true when the Committee of Scalias -- oops, I meant the RBC -- ruled as they did, the people be damned.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure about Jeralyn, but BTD has (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    complained about caucuses and the way they disenfranchise people for as long as I've read him (before Talkleft).

    Anyone who looks at what a caucus is (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    and compares it to a primary can see the problems.

    [ Parent ]
    And it should be added ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    BTD has always been a (mild) Obama supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    How do you know this? (none / 0) (#146)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    He's always supported Obama throughout. What makes that a "mild" support.

    [ Parent ]
    Because he's said it! (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    I think the term he used was "tepid."

    [ Parent ]
    Get Geraldo on this! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    And you're just the person to get him the info, Jeralyn.

    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    This should be all over the media, presenting it to the DNC at the convention will be useless exercise.  

    [ Parent ]
    I completely reject the idea that.... (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:48:48 AM EST
    ...you have to have some kind of street cred of prior disapproval to form an opinion on this. I had no problem with caucuses either. Never lived in a caucus state so I didn't give them any thought one way or another. I refuse to accept that this means that I am not entitled to form an opinion once I have been presented with evidence.

    You cetainly... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Binx on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    You certainly can have an opinion regarding the fairness of caucuses but you can't change the fact that they count. Caucuses were and are a valid part of the process of determining a Democratic nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not? (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Hope on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    There's a new rule that you can add votes for intention, and take actual votes away.

    [ Parent ]
    Binx is the one playing with your ratings (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    so, his/her credibility is attached to his/her antics.

    Too bad, you are correct in your comment. I just don't care what you have to say since you are trying to agitate the site with your game.


    [ Parent ]

    They are a distinctive... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    ...problem after the preliminary contests.

    The primaries should be a dry run for the conditions under which the nominee will eventually run.

    The delegate allocation is nothing like the EV system and it is n't one person opne vote either.

    it's just sort of made up from all sorts of odds and ends that are hard to understand and are open to extrordinary media manipulation.

    i'v e consistently suggested this "system" be replaced with an imitation of the French Presidential election system.  A two tier run off. An Open first ballot nationally and then a secondary ballot between the top two from the first a month or two later--again nationally.

    The Primary system has never produced a winner for us.  Bill Clinton was extremely lucky to beat Tsongas.   If Jesse Jackson had run again or Gore had thrown his hat in we'd have had a second bush term in 1992.  How Clinton won after losing two contests is a complete mystery. It could 't be replicated today. The system doesn't produce winners consistently enough to have any instrinsic value.

    [ Parent ]

    No one is saying they shouldn't count (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    The superdelegates need to decide who is the better candidate and which one really represents the will of the people.

    Hillary is the favored candidate by far.

    They can consider the lopsidedness and inconsequential nature of his wins.

    Pledged delegates is but one factor. This is another.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not trying to change anything... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    I was reacting to what I considered to be the original posters challenge that somehow only those who were always opposed to how caucuses were run are entitled to criticize them now. Obviously nothing can be done about what has already transpired but I would certainly be in favor of taking a closer look at this and perhaps instituting some reforms.

    [ Parent ]
    Since it is now allowed that (5.00 / 15) (#30)
    by Hope on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    Votes be given for "intention", Clinton should be given delegates for the voters who intended to vote for her in the caucuses, but couldn't, because

    They were disabled. Sick. A woman with kids. Had to work. Old. Intimidated by race-baiting. Unable to go against their boss or Union leader openly.

    Since the rules now include voter intention, Clinton should now be asking for the skewed caucus result to be redressed in line with voter intention.

    Yes, I did a long post on the numbers (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    of elderly, particularly in nursing homes, who can vote absentee in primaries but are unlikely to make it to caucuses. Very sad. That's another 2 million voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't there something that can be done with these (none / 0) (#184)
    by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    numbers?  Is there a law suit in them?

    [ Parent ]
    What about her imaginary caucus goers? (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    Shouldn't they count?  They weren't able to get to or stay at the caucuses but they should count as much as Obama's mythological Michigan voters.  
    I'm sure she'd be ahead if we counted them.  

    Her imaginary caucus goers don't count.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    ...because they cheat. <snark>

    [ Parent ]
    google is your friend (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    so is the search engine on our site.

    And because (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    exit polls are the end all and be all (and apparently even the margin of error only works in the positive sense)

    Why don't we just annoint Frank Luntz as our Appointer of Presidents and have done with it?

    Nope, I'm sticking with the DNC's (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    staff astrologer.  It makes as much sense, and it brings the additional benefit of divine intervention to sanction -- sanctify? -- the coronation.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 8) (#131)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    they should take up the fine art of scatomancy. Or perhaps that's how they're already doing it and gods know they're certainly up to their eyeballs in bullsh!t.

    scatomancy
    a form of divination by examination of animal excrement.


    [ Parent ]

    Think the Sybilline Oracles are available? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    I hear they're pretty tough.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    thinks she's a Sybil. Sadly, she's not even worthy to be the Delphic Oracle's python.

    [ Parent ]
    This is amazing (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    I wish you had the ability to do an email blast to SDs, but hopefully that is what the Clinton campaign is doing.  

    The clinton team have always expressed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    some discomfort about caucuses because they know they are dominated by more fanatical voting groups.

    You're responding to a charge (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by ChrisO on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    that no one's making. No one's saying that Obama's caucus delegates shouldn't count, or that we should feel bad for Hillary. Her argument about electability has always been aimed at the superdelegates. Whether the caucuses are fair or not, the fact remains that Obama has built his delegate lead with the support of a very small number of voters. All of the weeping and fainting at his rallies gives the impression of this tidal wave of support. But he has not demonstrated strength across the board nationally that Clinton has. That's the issue.

    reform! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Robert Oak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    The minute I started hearing reports on intimidation and esp. difficulties of many voters in these things I realized this is biased as hell.

    If anything I hope primaries are greatly reformed.

    Because we had this obnoxious two party system, rigging the primaries makes it all even less of any real choice.

    I mean frankly this entire thing is a joke and it's a huge smoke screen for insiders to get their candidate into office.

    wait a moment. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM EST
    candidates shoudl spend a while in appreticeship for the nomination.  It shouldn't be a matter of the fake insider outsider dichotomy.  

    It should simply be easy for the Democratic base to understand how it works. The rules are Byzantine and produce a string of losers because everything is so vague.

    The Primacaucus must go.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, this site was fighting (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    against caucuses AND open primaries for a very long time. We have been fighting against the Republican manipulation of our Democratic primary. And don't you think Obama supporters would be fighting again them too if the shoe was on the other foot right now? But do understand, there was a argument being made since the beginning of the year.

    That has nothing to do with the post (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    how flawed the caucus system is has no bearing on when BTD and/or Jeralyn started talking about it.

    Using your logic, analysis of historical events has no basis in fact simply because it isn't analyzed until AFTER it has happened.

    Stark Reality, heartening for this voter (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    but to a besoted bloated insane D party  "leader" - not so much.

    In a sense, I have been flying by the seat of my pants for months - since the media lemmings refuse to print/speak truth. I never wavered simply because I trust my gut level feelings(they have worked and helped me for years) and there really has been enough information even though it is minuscule, I and millions of others sensed this is a phony winning visual for BO.

    Info forwarded to my NC 11th div. Rep. Heath Shuler. He became my last contact with the D party months ago.

    I am in your debt Jeralyn - for so much information, stability and grace you provide.
    Thank you.

    Here's one (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/30/125313/46

    Note the date -- 12/7/2007.  I didn't search earlier, because it's obvious that Jeralyn states in this one that caucuses DO NOT reflect the will of the voters at large -- which is the major problem of caucuses.

    The date is actually 12/30/07 ... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    which is still prior to the Iowa Caucus.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, Teresa (none / 0) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    Self-admitted typo queen.

    However, the point is the diary is from PRIOR to the Iowa Caucuses.  The commenter accused Jeralyn of objecting to caucuses only because Hillary was losing them.  I was pointing out that's an utterly false accusation.

    Anyway, I consider myself scolded ;-).

    [ Parent ]

    No prob, Teresa ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    I just didn't want someone to get to it first.

    And I typo with the best of them too.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    That post, reported before the Iowa caucuses (which I attended by the way, spending 12/31 through 1/4 in Des Moines) says:

    There are 3 million people in Iowa's 99 counties, but it's expected that only 200,000 will come out to caucus. So the caucuses may not reflect the preferences of the voters in Iowa -- only the preferences of politically active voters.

    Just something else to keep in mind.



    [ Parent ]
    When, oh, when? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Blair,

    When did you start commenting at TL?  Oh, today.  Pls. see the search function to find answers to your questions as to what Jeralyn and BTD have previously posted.  All the answers you seek are there.

    just wow...the Democrats are so screwed....n/t (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST


    The Democrats (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    aren't screwed.  The Democrats are getting exactly what they want -- to purge the Clintons.  That is their measure of victory.

    It's we voters who are screwed.

    [ Parent ]

    Quite (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    right.

    [ Parent ]
    point taken...sadly n/t (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The caucuses began in January (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    And you are starting to chatter. This is your first day here. 10 comments in 24 hours is the limit. You made your point, we disagree, now move on or get a new talking point.

    Caucusers and primary voters (1.00 / 3) (#161)
    by lgm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    It's obvious why Obama did better in caucuses than in primaries.  It takes more effort to caucus than to vote in a primary.  To caucus you have to be fired up and ready to go.  Despite the energy in this blog, there's more fire among Obama supporters.  

    Obama supporters also are more likely to understand the issues.  Did you see exit polls from Kentucky showing how many Clinton voters think Obama is a Muslim?  

    Finally, if you want to look for interesting posts here, look for the ones rated 1. The 5's are echo chamber reverberations.  


    [ Parent ]

    Too bad for you there aren't enough... (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    fiery Obama supporters to even nominate your guy, much less elect him.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a troll (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Hope on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Untruth, and unsubstantiated (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    "Obama supporters are more likely to understand the issues"?  Based on your usual attacks on those dreaded Appalachians, again, huh? -- and your attack does not support your statement.

    Obama supporters think that I'm a low-information voter with a low education level -- yet evidence shows that Obama supporters do not vote downticket because they do not understand the issues.  That makes them low-information voters of little use to the grass roots of the