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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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.

    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.

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

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


    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. :-)


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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

    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.

    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.)


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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".

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


    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!

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    What about her imaginary caucus goers? (5.00 / 4) (#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>

    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.

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    a form of divination by examination of animal excrement.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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

    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.

    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 ;-).


    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.


    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.

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

    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.


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

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


    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.

    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 party.

    And, of course, Obama supporters think that a former First Lady respected around the world is nothing but a b*ch, that our most popular and successful former Dem president is a racist, and that both are pimps, and their daughter is a w*re.  That doesn't recommend Obama supporters' intelligence -- and their behavior doesn't recommend how they were raised, either.  Nor does your behavior here.


    Heh (none / 0) (#220)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    Look, this is a very old subject we've chewed over for months here and it's frankly boring to have to educate yet another neophyte.

    Bottom line is that caucuses empower people with the spare time and social confidence.  Working-class voters, single mothers, people with night jobs, members of the active military, elderly in nursing homes, as Jeralyn points out, even elderly who aren't in nursing homes but struggling to live at home-- all those folks are either flat-out unable to caucuse or there are huge barriers for them.

    And just coincidentally, those groups are Hillary's core constituencies.


    I found several in 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    within seconds, simply by googling a couple of basic terms.  Yes, you stand corrected, so stand down.  

    These (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    numbers should be presented at the convention.

    Moveon etc (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
     I am really curious, what rebuttal would Moveon etc, have with this analysis that the "will of the people" is first hard to discern from this system and second, that from a deeper look, the alleged "math "of the primary is not an absolute, finally that the will of the people is with Hillary.  

    Moveon doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    base their choices on fact.  Remember that sham of a "vote" they held to decide to endorse Obama.

    They're just another reality-manufacturer.


    Aside from the fair/unfair (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    issue - and I think that it is a valid subject regardless of when anyone on this site began "complaining" about it - the point of the post is that Obama may be leading on the basis of caucus wins, but those wins are (1) not particularly substantial in the will-of-the-people argument, and (2) do not correlate to general election success.

    It is perfectly legitimate to look at where the candidates' delegate support comes from and to draw the conclusion that delegates that come from states that are almost guaranteed to go GOP by appreciable margins are not going to help put Obama over the top in a general election contest.  It is easy enough to do the math and know that if Obama cannot carry Florida or West Virginaia or Ohio or Michigan, he cannot make up for it in red states where he won caucuses.  He cannot even make up for it in states he might be able to turn blue.

    Your argument that no one who did not complain about the caucuses before this election cycle must remain silent is disingenuous and nonsensical.  And you are quite aware of that, I'm sure, but you think it works.  

    It doesn't.

    Not true ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    look up thread.  There's a link to at least one diary complaining about the unfairness of the caucus process prior to Iowa.

    BTD has complained about it also.  And he's an Obama supporter.

    So you are not correct.

    incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    I got a sense that the Clinton team were very nervous about Iowa, because they knew it would be dominated by muscle and fanatics.

    They moaned a lot about Obama bussing in Illinoians and muscling her out. I'm an Edwards supporter btw, so i'm not biased about it. he'd have prolly won the caucus vote in areas like Idaho and Alaska as well-- had Obama been defeated in Iowa and New Hampshire.  his base was more activist sand union based so he had the fanatics and muscle waiting in the wings had Obama stumbled.

    Clinton's big error was to compete too hard in Iowa---she should have thrown as much of her vote to Edwards as possible. Her team was too small minded to understand that obama was a huge threat to her.  Had Edwards won Iowa (and had done so because Clinton instructed enough of her voters to support him) instead of Obama--why she'd be the nominee now.

    It's a shame for her that her strategists thought edwards was the likely competition.

    Your assertion is a logical fallacy. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by my opinion on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM EST

    Completely irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM EST
    Did you complain about Florida's butterfly ballot before the 2000 election?  I'm guessing.... not.

    New Polls ARG (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Robert Oak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST


    Clinton:  44
    Obama:  48
    undecided:  8


    Clinton:  60
    Obama:  34
    Undecided:  6


    Wow indeed (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    8% undecided in MT too.  Glad Hill is still campaigning up to the end, while Obama has shifted into GE mode.

    What happens if Hill wins SD (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    tomorrow?  That would mean she has won the last 4 months of the primary.  Why are Democrats rejecting the stronger candidate?

    Via ARG(yes, I know, it's ARG, but man, these are some numbers)

    Democrats May 31-June 1

    Clinton 44%
    Obama 48%
    Undecided 8%

    South Dakota
    Democrats May 31-June 1

    Clinton 60%
    Obama 34%
    Undecided 6%

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    The Democrats' goal isn't to win.  Otherwise, they'd be doing something other than what they're doing.

    Ed Shultz's head explodes (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    right next to Tom Daschle's, that's what happens!  

    I fervently hope to see that outcome.


    Man, what I would do for (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    that one.  Better burn some entrails to the gods tonight.

    I thought Obama was heavily favored in SD (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    .. no?

    You need to be suspended (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    just for lying.  Look at my other post.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    Now we have definitive data.  Great catch as to why TL is fair and balanced.  Now the data is out in a fully contested primary and it's definite: caucuses disenfranchise .  Got anything to say about the data?  

    New Website (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Missblu on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    There is a new website for women called

    I will post this there Jeralyn
    Thank You

    We have discussed all that before, too (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    and many times here.  Please lurk for a while, learn to use the search function, and do not take up bandwidth with your redundancies.

    BlairPA - missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by pcronin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    No matter how much you spin and argue in order to disrupt focus on the caucus imbalance and injustices, you can't negate the Bottom line:

    37 Primaries with 34.5 million voters:
    Clinton + 502,941 votes
    Clinton + 67 total delegates

    13 Caucuses with 1.1 million voters:
    Obama + 299,768 votes
    Obama + 205 total delegates

    And, even with 75% of the 238,168 Michigan "Uncommitted" votes being awarded to Obama (as per exit polls), Clinton still leads by 324,315 votes in the 37 Primaries.  

    And, even with a 57% cut in her earned delegates from Mi & FL, Clinton still leads by 67 delegates in Primaries.

    So even after imposing the DNC's RBC sanctions and after stealing 4 earned delegates from Clinton in MI ... Clinton is still the leader in both votes and delegates according to the VOICE and WILL of 34.5 million citizens.

    And don't even suggest that Obama didn't go after the caucuses full well knowing as a voting rights specialist and constitutional attorney that they are the weak link in the Democratic voting system.

    From the beginning, Obama has focused on winning the nomination through any strategy. But, in the General Election, his Democratic nomination strategy will haunt him - because while he has gone after any states in order to rack-up delegates to win, Hillary has focused on winning the states that matter for winning back the Whitehouse.

    Obama will start the race for the Presidency with 109 Electoral Votes [EV] from blue or purple states. That's 40% of what he'll need to win in November.  60% of the EV from his states won are from RED states.

    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.

    And, one fact I didn't include in the report:

    Of the states that Kerry won in 2004, Clinton has won those states with 63% of the Electoral Votes [EV] and Obama has won the Kerry states with only 37% of the EV.

    Obama is starting the race having won less of the delegates in primaries representing 97% of the votes, less of the votes overall - including all caucus and primary votes cast - and less of the EV won by Kerry or needed to win the Presidency!

    Obama took the easy path to the nomination. Now that flawed strategy will haunt him - and unfortunately all Dems - in the race to win the Whitehouse.
      -- peniel cronin

    Are these the same caucuses (caucusi?) (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton and President Clinton have been in the political process with these caucuses since 1992 (16 years). What have they done to alter this in any way? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. As head of the Democratic Party for 8 years, as an incredibly popular president, and the most influential Senator over the past 8 years, the Clintons didn't change anything. And now they are upset because it doesn't work in their favor. And they are now upset because of Florida and Michigan when they didn't fight for it last year when it would have mattered and made a difference.

    Sorry if I don't feel badly for Sen. Clinton. The time to fight is when there is injustice - not inconvenience. Disenfranchisement was not on her radar for 16 years and now I'm supposed to feel like she got cheated?

    This isn't about the Clintons... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    It's about the franchise! Deflection tactics make for a very weak argument. Oh, and by the way, it's also a very ineffectual seduction technique (just in case you were hoping to win my vote).

    Caucuses never were exploited before (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    as they have been in this election, nor have they brought in such massive numbers; read up on the history of caucuses.  So only now have many of these problems been exposed.

    But also read up on more than a decade of calls by party regulars (like Michigan's Levin, a longtime Clinton supporter) for a massive restructuring of the primary season, including the primacy of early caucus states.  That is the crucial backstory for understanding the Michigan (and Florida) mess this year.


    You gotta point.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    The Clintons have been Democrat party bigshots for 20 years...they never saw a potential disenfranchisement problem in Democratic primaries before?  Only now when it has threatened their personal ambitions?  Curious...

    At least some lasting good can come out of this mess....a massive overhaul in how the Dems pick a nominee next time around, no matter how this turns out. Hopefully by national popular vote and sending the whole "super delegate" travesty to the scrap heap.  I doubt it will happen because party big-wigs will find the process harder to rig when it is truly "one man, one vote".


    Here's the Point (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    While the Clintons have been around, for sure, it is entirely legitimate to point out and analyze a pledged delegate lead that is built on a caucus strategy - Obama's. Neither candidate will win now without the supers.

    This is all about what data is meaningful to the supers.

    Obama must submit to this analysis without complaint because he did not win enough to hit the magic number with the supers.  That's his problem.

    The supers are to analyze 2 candidates who did not reach a finish line with pledged delegates - and decide whose voting patterns indicate a stronger nominee.

    Most objective observers would not even consider this a close question.


    What a tangled web the party weaves.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    when they intend to disenfranchise.

    That's the problem with so many damn rules, you can find loopholes all over the joint, varied interpretations, etc.

    Since I'm voting for neither of these clowns, all I really wanna see is the person who got the most votes from Joe and Jane Doe Democrat get the damn thing....but with all these rules and regs and the varied interpretations have made such a clusterf*ck of the thing even figuring out who got the most votes seems impossible to dom accurately.

    The worst case scenario is a bunch of crooked super d's with an agenda picking the winner in a smokey backroom.  Better to flip a damn coin and fix it for 2012, decided by national popular vote and forget about stupid delegates and super delegates.  You go up on stage at the 2012 convention and say "Candidate X got 40 million and Cabdidate Y got 30 million so Candidate X is our nominee".  Case closed.


    the (none / 0) (#115)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    rules that got HIM the delegates were proposed by Donna Brazile in 2006, not under the Clintons.

    This "bottom line" is completely false. (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by independent thinker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    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...]

    This "bottom line" is false and designed to mislead people to believe Clinton won a landslide of the popular vote. Your numbers assume that ALL primary voters voted for Clinton and NONE voted for Obama. In that utterly rediculous line of thinking, then yes, Clinton would be ahead by roughly 35 million votes.

    Fortunately, we live the reality-based reality where Obama DID indeed earn millions of primary voter's votes. If we add in voters from FL and MI, then by some estemates Clinton has a VERY NARROW popular vote margin (Clinton 17.2 to Obama 16.8 million)...assuming you throw out any estemates for the four caucus states that haven't supplied voter participation numbers.

    That is a razor thin margin if you take it at face value. But since there is no precise way to  count popular vote under the current mix of primaries and caucuses...and the fact that delegates are the agreed upon measure...the popular vote arguement is pretty weak.

    Now if you want to talk about changing the system for future contests to a direct popular vote count where every state holds a primary and everyone agrees ahead of time to this way of deciding the nominee, then I am with you.

    not what it says (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    It says with 35.6 million votes cast, she leads among the 34.5 who voted in primaries, he leads among the 1.1 that voted in caucuses.

    Completely true.


    OK, so I agree that the statement ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent thinker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM EST
    is not entirely false, upon a second read. I will admit that I read it too quickly. For that I do sincerely appologize.

    However it is still highly misleading. Among the primary states ONLY, the difference in popular vote is very slight, perhaps a few hundred thousand.

    In caucus states Obama vastly out-performed Clinton, but since four of those states have not provided voter numbers we can't get an accurate head count.

    By some estemates of total caucus voters (including estemates of participation for the four states) Obama has a slight popular vote lead.

    In the end, the popular vote is not the measure by which the nominee is chosen. Delegates are that measure.

    And again, if we want to discuss future contests and what method to use, then that is a discussion I am willing to have.


    Respectfully, I think you're blaming the author (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    for your misunderstanding of the data reported.

    It's noted that 42% of Obama's wins are in caucuses.


    The 13 caucus states account for 3% of the vote.

    So 42% of Obama's wins are in states accounting for only 3% of the vote. Unless there's something wrong with one or both of those figures, Obama's support has been inflated by caucus wins. This may be why Hillary has won the second half of the nomination battle despite his advantages in money, organization, and a fawning press corps: he really isn't a viable candidate outside narrow constituencies. If true, the Obama phenomenon is mostly smoke and mirrors.

    We'll see in November, I guess. Sadly, I don't think the Superdelegates are going to hit the brakes before plunging over the cliff.


    This assumes that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by independent thinker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    cannot win big blue states won by Clinton in the Primary. History show this is not necessarily the case. Many many GE candidates have won in states a competitor won in a primary.

    Recent polls suggest this is the case. A few  examples:

    The 30 May field poll for California shows Obama 52, McCain 35 and Clinton 53, McCain 36. It also shows Californians now favor Obama 51 to 38.

    The 29 May SUSA poll for Michigan shows: Obama 41, McCain 37.

    30 May Rasmussen for New York: Obama 52, McCain 33 and Clinton 59, MicCain 29.

    And a recent poll for Ohio showed Obama over McCain by 9 points. Ohio!

    I could go on, but the point is that these are all states Clinton won which now show Obama ahead vs. McCain. The Democratic nominee will win big blue states regardless of who won them in the primary.


    at play here. The nomination process is proportional and in many of the states Clinton "won" the the vote difference was less that 10%. So while Clinton did win several large "blue" states, the margin was not overwealming. And again, I argue that the nominee will win those states, regardless of whether he or she won them in the primary.

    Recent polls also show that Obama can flip Virginia, Colorado and possibly New Mexico too.


    No it's not (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    Your numbers assume that ALL primary voters voted for Clinton and NONE voted for Obama.

    That is not what she is assuming at all.   She is making the point that Hillary's support comes from a much bigger universe of possible voters.  You are free to argue that that fact it is not indicative of anything, but it is wrong to say she is trying to mislead anyone.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KC4847 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    You've got this right.  It's really unbelievable to me how invested people are in their candidates, the motives they ascribe to the other candidate, and how crazy it is all getting.  I voted for Hillary in the CA primary, but realize that Obama just simply ran enough of a campaign to out perform her, if just barely.  If Clinton had campaigned harder in those caucus states, much of this parsing of every statistic would not be occuring because she likely would be the nominee.  But, she chose a different strategy.  That's life.  If the Supers decide in her favor this week, I'll support her.  If they decide for Obama, I'll support him.  Both candidates have their flaws, but both are a hell of a lot better than McCain in the end.  Supporters on both sides need to step back and have a drink.  

    her erroe was to not transfer (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    about 7% of the vote in Iowa to edwards so he could inch out Obama from the top slot there.

    If anything she comnpeted too hard there and wasn't flexible enough to see the danger that an early win for Obama represented.

    She only needed to instruct a few thousand of her supporters to make a tactical shift to Edwards for that caucus and Obama would have flamed out after Clinton won in New Hamphire.

    c'est la vie.   Obama supperters were terribfied that she was planning to game iowa like that.  Her team was too inflexible to consider it though.


    Her other error.. (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    ..was that she didn't take her name off the Illinois ballot so it wouldn't count

    Did you read the report? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Your comments seem to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed, and do not make much sense as a commentary on the report.

    Read the report, or at least read the two tables on page 12 of the report. Then you will see that Jeralyn's comment which you are objecting to is simply a concise description of the data in those two tables.


    umm...no (1.00 / 1) (#203)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    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.
    No... That is just silly.

    Obama's lead would be from all of the voters that voted for him, not just 1.1 million.  

    And Obama did win 17 primaries, so it isn't like he only won caucuses.  

    Lets not distort the facts please.

    JM (1.00 / 1) (#250)
    by The Troubadour on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    Nine reasons I'm linking to John McCain:

    1. John McCain wants to align himself with Bush on destroying Social Security.

    2. John McCain thinks working-class Americans don't matter by refusing to support raising the minimum wage.

    3. John McCain thinks the GI Bill is too generous for our veterans.

    4. John McCain is "fine" with us being in Iraq for "a hundred years," and thinks America could be there for another "thousand years" or even "a million years."

    5. John McCain thinks NAFTA is fantastic.

    6. John McCain's economic policy was written by a lobbyist. A maverick? Not so much.

    7. John McCain wants to make abortion illegal by overturning Roe v. Wade.

    8. John McCain thinks Bush was right to veto kids health insurance expansion. He doesn't care about our children.

    9.  John McCain supports Bush's Iraq strategy, and plans to continue it.

    These articles on John McCain all come from mainstream news sources, and most quote John McCain directly. John McCain: we can't afford another 4 years of George W. Bush.

    Better get the word out (none / 0) (#1)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    to these folks.

    Obama to Get Remaining Senate Endorsements
    "Most of the seventeen Democratic senators who have remained uncommitted throughout the primaries will endorse Barack Obama for president this week," CNN has learned.

    Sources say the senators "will wait until after the South Dakota and Montana primaries to announce their support for Obama."

    they can change their mind (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    any time before the convention. Unless one candidate drops out, there is no nominee, no matter how people today say they would vote in August.

    I am less and less confident that there would (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    be any last minute mind-changing, since it ought to be obvious now that Obama is less electable than Clinton; with what we know now, there should be massive defections of SD's to Clinton and daily announcements of previously uncommitted coming out for Clinton.

    If Obama goes over the top on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, that will be pretty much the last we will even hear about Hillary for the next almost-three months.  The media will be fully into general election mode - period - and I am willing to bet that they will maintain the kid gloves treatment of Obama until he is locked in as the nominee in August, and then the knives will come out.

    It makes me feel ill reading Cronin's analysis, to look at the electoral map and know that it probably isn't going to matter.

    The only thing that would change minds is a too-big-to-ignore scandal that would have the party leaders forcing Obama to withdraw.


    I believe it will be even more (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    obvious in August.   Hillary should not do anything that precludes her being available for votes at the convention.  (there I go, assuming there might be rules that mean anything.)

    The superDs may be waiting till the last minute... (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    to announce a switch to Clinton just to avoid the "unpleasantness" they are sure to experience from the Obama camp.

    And that, Jeralyn, is what keep me sane for now. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by feet on earth on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    I decided to put myself in a sort of political limbo until the convention.  

    I'll enjoy my summer, my family coming over to visit from Italy, travel around the country with them and follow the news (and this blog) in moderate (as opposed to addicted) way.

    There is nothing I can do the change anything anyway.  My only move is not do until November, at which point I Know exactly what to: I'll stand up for Democracy, Justice, Count the Votes, and an equitable society.  There is no organized party that even pretend to support any of these principles.  If there is one person in the GE (up-ticket or down-ticket) that does, fine, I'll vote.  If not I will use my virtual ballot as virtual toilet paper.

    That said, I want to say that I admire you Jaralyn a great deal.  You are using you voice and this forum to promote the principles I hold dear.

    You a cool, level headed, warm woman to look up to.  Your work to bring out issues and reports such as this one is invaluable.

    As I take a lesser involved approach in reading you blog and the great comm enters here, I applaud you for your dedication.

    My hart-felt thanks you Jeralyn and all the goddess and gods of the universe bless you and be on you side for ever.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#15)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    the problem is that if Obama hits the magic number later this week, he is the presumptive nominee, and cannot wait until August to start going after McCain.  If Clinton supporters take offense at that, there will be little he can do about it.  

    He has been doing that already. (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    I could care less. In fact, I hope he does.

    Once people see how he fares against the republican attack machine once Hillary has suspended and they can't attack her anymore...people will be begging her to come roaring back.

    If she does suspend, and there is no guarantee that she will, (she could just go on vacation) she will hold her delegates until August and step out of the way to let Obama fill his boots.


    Yup - let him go ahead (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    and presume he will be the nominee.  Does not bother me one bit. When he proves incompetent at making a dent in McCain's lead in swing states, SDs can vote for someone better at the convention.

    Why should HRC voters care if BO goes after McCain (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    It's a free country.

    Obama still has to be declared the nominee.

    Not having the votes to win a general election is a serious problem.

    Boasting about crossing the threshold is tired and only makes Obama look weaker for not having closed this out yet.

    Until his delegates are on the record and his total is endorsed at the Dem convention where they declare the official nominee, you can dance all you want.


    We've (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    been hearing for months about the 50 supers that will switch to Obama after primary X.  I will believe it when I see it.

    The lack of voter support has to worry the SDs (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    Each one should be sent a copy of that, as well as -- I feel terrible for having forgotten her name, because she deserves a medal -- Peniel Cronen(sp?)'s outstanding study.

    TeamClinton's on the ball; no doubt they're already on that.


    Understood (none / 0) (#24)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    it will be interesting to see what Rendell, Vilsack and Wasserman Schultz do in the coming days.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    Wasserman Schultz can only half do something since the rule committee decided she is only half a person.

    Just (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    confirms what I've been thinking for a while: The party is on a suicide mission.

    Far be it from me (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    to get in their way.  The plan is in place and the ritual will commence sometime this week, ending in November.

    Gives me more time to get used (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    to saying President McCain, if the Dem super-delegates are h*llbent on doing the stoopid.  Gives me more time to protect my self-interests for life under four more years of Republicans, just as the Dem super-delegates are doing.  

    And that's not all bad for me, by any means, since I have a job and some means -- so Prima Donna and the other allegedly undeclared super-delegates can go staff the soup lines for the poor, instead of staffing the DNC.  So thanks for the advance word on what will happen to Dems in November.  


    Did it ever occur to you.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by GenuineRisk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:02 AM EST
    ...that the REASON caucuses were used was to test a candidates organizational ability?

    It takes nothing to win the popular vote when you're the name brand and your opponent is a virtual unknown.

    But it takes skill and organization to win a caucus.

    Please. The rules were the rules. I'm as sorry as you are that things ended badly, but let's not go dissing the caucuses. That's one of the things Hillary did wrong. Don't add to it.

    Oh, I gotta know...where (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    did you get this from about the caucuses and organizational skills. Obama, if you'll recall, has said he doesn't have organizational skills. Where does this come from????

    Did it ever occur to you... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    ...That it was impossible for Clinton to win the cuacus states when the critical mass of Deomcratic voters were located in college towns in these states?  They were not her demographic to begin with.  She spent her money on big states instead.  Like CA, NJ, NY, FL, MI, PA, OH, MA, you know the states that actually count in the GE.  

    It's cute to do them in a first round (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    but they stink in the supertuesday type moments.

    You need to have a broader test of the real election where it is a secret ballot and the electoral college.


    It sounds like hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    but if you look at what has happened you get a distincyt impression that the media gave Obama a by, punished Edwards and Clinton and the DNC were quite happy to have it all happen.

    My guess is that the caucuses produced lopsided wins for Obama and primaries would have been more 55 to 45 than the 65 to 35 that we have witnessed.


    Just you wait (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    Obama will try to make the next set of primaries all caucuses...mark my words. Why do you think he wants to take over the DNC? /snark

    "Hard left?" (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    Obama has nothing to do with the "hard left."  He isn't even soft left.

    and if he's so good at winning... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by jackyt on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    how come he isn't close to the "magic number" with his Pledged Delegate count. Kerry won without SuperDs, Gore won without SuperDs, WJC won without SuperDs. When is "da winnah" not a winner?

    "One man one vote".... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    has never existed in this country...we have one man, one vote, and cross your fingers the electoral college bases their votes on our votes.

    generally the EV system (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    has followed one person one vote.   A couple of instances it broke down, but it's still easy enough to understand how EV works. Win big populous states as much as possible, concentrate campaign time and money in close run battlegrounds.

    Teh Democratic primary system is so convoluted and open to media manipulation that it's just got to go.  

    I get a real sense that McCain was chosen by the GOP by the GOP and not the media.   With Obama have a sense that the media had their thumb on the scale and rules of delegate selection are so arcane that all sorts of electioneering went on under the radar of democratic scrutiny.  then you have the DNC setting it up and being very vocal in a contest to a point that they are obviously playaz too.


    Do you have a link..... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    where Clinton has spoken out against the electoral college system?  That's something I could give her some kudos for.

    Or some proof that she was critical of the Democratic party nomination process prior to this one beginning?


    Do you guys even do ... (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    the most minimal research when you make these claims?

    I remember this from the time.  But it only took five seconds on google to find it.

    My extremely tricky google search term was "Hillary Clinton on the electoral college."



    Thank you..... (2.00 / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    Kudos for Hillary.  I hope she sponsors another bill on it if she doesn't win this thing.

    Yet the skeptic wonders if her stance is a principled one or a convenient one because her fellow Democrat lost strictly because of the electoral college system.


    Not the same point. Focus. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    Do you understand why the (none / 0) (#167)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    electorial college was established in the first place?

    I think so..... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    to prevent the powerless from picking a candidate unacceptable to the powerful.

    No offense, but how old are you? (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    Or better, how long have you been following politics?

    Caucuses do, actually, test certain kinds of campaign organizational skills.  But you should go away and do some research before you go proclaiming why they exist and what they were intended to do.

    How did we get to such a point in this country that people feel so free to announce facts on the basis of zero knowledge of a subject?


    Apparently some of it came (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    about when Obama came onto the scene!

    I blame our government.... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    they've been pontificating about things they know nothing about for years, the general public just caught up.

    Because (none / 0) (#216)
    by GenuineRisk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    She has name recognition, and he doesn't. He wins smaller states because he has a chance to introduce himself to proportionately larger groups of people.

    did you see the latest poll saying Obama is way ahead of Clinton in CA now, if the primary was held today?

    did you see the CNN exit poll results showing 37% of the people in Puerto Rico said they didn't know anything about Obama (and therefore didn't vote for him)?

    The simple reason she's won the bigger states is more people know the name clinton than Obama. I'm not saying that's good or bad - it's just a fact.


    No, it's not a fact. It's spinning. (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    Update: Hillary to sue party over caucus system (none / 0) (#221)
    by GenuineRisk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    Some other telling data (none / 0) (#58)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    If you just look at states that had a margin of less than 10% in 2004, Hillary leads by 244,327 (with Obama assigned ALL the MI uncomitted and the caucus estimates) and 482,495 based on votes actually cast. She also lead by 124 to 89 in electoral votes for these states.

    It could be argues that the other states should be ignored for electability purposes, very unlikely to change hands.

    If you want to narrow this to 5% margin, the numbers are 218,779 and 456,947 for votes and 72 to 43 for electoral votes.

    Where is Al Gore? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM EST

    Even if Al Gore went on the ballot (none / 0) (#223)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    for fall, it would not move me to vote for him again and support the Dem ticket now -- not unless he would denounce the GOP-style tactics once used against him and now used by Dems against Dems.  Yes, where is Al Gore to speak to principles, not just politics?  If he, above all, does not do so, then the GOP will win the judgment of posterity about just how committed he and the Dems were to "the will of the people."

    Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#75)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    In the spirit of correctness, and less confusion, please change this:

    ...In the 37 primaries, Hillary Clinton is up 500,000 votes (counting Florida and Michigan and giving Barack Obama 75% of Michigan's uncommitted delegates

    from "delegates" to "votes"

    I changed it to (none / 0) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    75% of the votes from Michigan's uncommitted delegates. That was my phrasing, not the report author's and I have changed it for clarity. Thanks.

    Hillary needs to change the headline (none / 0) (#83)
    by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    Someone mentioned it before, probably jokingly, but it's a tactic that could work. Hillary should claim the nomination due to the popular vote.

    She will no longer be recognizing Obama as the presumptive nominee. The more people hear that she should be the nominee, the more people will believe she should be the nominee. This approach has been used by Obama and is working well. She needs to flip it back on him.

    and by the way...

    And if this information posted is true, then why don't Clinton Superdelegates start coming out for her now? This is a crucial time to change the tide.

    even if you were right (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    and you're not but if you were.....

    I guess you can't fight against voter suppression in Ohio if you can't prove you were fighting against it before Ohio.  Right???

    Your logic is banal.  But I didn't have a position on your stupid logic before you displayed it so you can ignore my comment as an act of convenience not principle.

    I think caucuses bring out the (none / 0) (#158)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    intent of the party of who "they" want to come out and vote for their preference. Voter suppression has been around a long time, and can get the desired result. Caucus goers gave the Obama people the desired result!

    Really doesn't matter when it was (none / 0) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
    since there is no issue preclusion on addressing matters of injustice.

    The caucuses are either fair or unfair.  What Jeralyn says about them and when she said it does not change it.

    You may think you're scoring big points here, but you're not.

    You don't read Jeralyn (none / 0) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    very often do you.  She is not one for forceful language. She was making a point.  She made her point.  Caucuses aren't about the will of the voters at large.

    You're making an accusation, which is wrong.

    It is time for you to stop.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#192)
    by SpinDoctor on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    Are there any studies on what the projected results would have been if all of the caucus states held primaries?

    Look, (none / 0) (#197)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    do you not get the point that the problem with caucuses, while certainly noted before the Iowa caucus both here and just about everywhere else in the blogosphere -- including at DailyKos -- became especially acute and required redressing AFTER it demonstrably was skewing votes in a clearly undemocratic way toward one candidate?

    Yes, of course it always disenfranchised voters -- look at how few of them even show up, for God's sake, if you don't believe that.

    But trying to handle things that are, in fact, inherently unfair always becomes more pressing when the problem becomes acute.

    That's why the problem with punishing voters in MI and FL by denying them a voice became important to address when their votes really counted, and did not when it was presumed that they very likely wouldn't make a difference.

    Once upon a time your ideological colleagues on this matter in the Bush camp made a similar argument regarding the Florida votes in 2000: why do Democrats care about the few hundreds of votes in FL so much, when they are paying no attention to many thousands of absentee ballots that hadn't yet been counted in CA? The answer was obvious: because the votes in FL made a difference to the outcome, and the votes in CA didn't. You care about votes and fairness most pointedly when they count.

    And if you're looking for inconsistencies, why don't you go over to DailyKos, and talk to posters like Kos who once upon a time thought that caucuses were tremendously unfair, and should be eliminated, and find out why they are so cool with them now?

    I wonder how people like (none / 0) (#210)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    Oprah, Caroline K., McCasgill, and the like feel about the voting pattern now and how much support really is or isn't there for Obama. Where are the independent voices of reason!

    can you explain (none / 0) (#211)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    how someone would be able to analyze and compare the results between primaries and caucuses BEFORE they happen?

    Don't you think apost in Dec 2007 WARNING that a caucus may not accurately reflect the will of the people and now an analysis after the fact that proves the warning is valid?

    All you really need to do tp prove that a caucus doesn't reflect the will of the people is to look at what happened in TX, both the primary and caucus were held on the same day.  And, the results from each were completely the opposite.

    Help Required (none / 0) (#218)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    The point is that Obama will require massive rescue to try to win states that Hillary already has in her back pocket.

    This is my opinion (none / 0) (#235)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The rump of th edemocratic party in the deep red states of the Rocky's and Alaska is dominated by the fringe.  If you want real power in those states you join the GOP.  So teh Dems are just a left over of very liberal voters.    Couple that with GOP cross overs who loath Clinton and she gets wiped out in the rocky caucuses.

    washington and Oregon are the exception becaus ethey have larger Dem populations who have been through  the discilpline of real power.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#242)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST

    Why, why (none / 0) (#243)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    do you think SD are ignoring this overwhelming evidence of who is stronger in Nov. ? Why? What's behind all this? Money? Hate to the Clintons? What is it?  It just makes no logical sense whatsoever they
    choose to be blind.

    yes, the Clintons knew (none / 0) (#245)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    >>>>They knew (just as Bill knew in 1992 and 1996) that caucuses were part of the nomination process.

    but Bill nor Hillary gamed the system to gain delegates by targeting universities in caucus and red states that will still be red in Nov.
    iow - Obama used the kidz as pawns to achieve a high delegate count, leading them and others to believe he could change red states to blue states in Nov.
    Of course, none of this would have been possible without his
    "beat the B---h!" campaign - giving the video game generation a target to eliminate while distracting them from Obama's voting record for the oil companies, for the credit card industry, for war funding...

    ellie: (none / 0) (#246)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    i think you raise some interesting points. us old cobal/fortran/dos dinosaurs can't keep up with the java bunnies, or so they think! the initial flurry of excitement among the younger voters may well have been, at least in part, a result of  texting/IM activity, especially in the college towns, where the 18-25 demographic would be most heavily concentrated. this might well explain his success in IA. not so much SC.

    if this were the only reason for his early successes, it should have been able to be duplicated; every state has at least one major college, they didn't stop texting each other after super tuesday. and how to explain his loss in NH? were the phone lines down that day at the university?

    so yes, while i'm sure that technology in the hands of many younger obama supporters certainly played a part in his early successes, i think, as BTD has repeatedly pointed out, demographics has been the single major factor. that, and as the campaign has worn on, more revelations about sen. obama's past/current relationships has also adversely affected him.

    delegates (none / 0) (#248)
    by whecht on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    I think we need to outlaw caucuses.

    They are undemocratic.

    Let's get rid of all caucuses and force the caucus states to hold primaries.

    It is the only fair way if you want popular vote.

    Why even have delegates?

    Just have a popular vote and whoever gets the most wins.

    But, honestly, I just don't see how people can claim that changing rules after the fact is fair.

    I just don't see it.

    The TX caucuses (none / 0) (#249)
    by lambert on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST