THE CAUCUS FACTOR
By Dr. Lynette Long on July 7, 2008 at 4:45 PM in Barack Obama, DNC, Democratic Nomination, Disenfranchisement, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Red States, Texas, The Denver Group, Voter Enfranchisement, Washington state
On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step. After the polls closed at 7 pm, primary voters could participate in a caucus. Sixty-five percent of the pledged delegates were awarded based on the primary results and the other 35% based on the caucus results.
According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary - 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined. In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported. Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes. Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct. Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.
Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges. During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot. To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate. The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.
Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift. Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.
This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary. The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions. What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results? Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states? What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results?
No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee — but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.
The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters. Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours. Senator Clinton’s core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses. Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier. Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus. And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration. Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for. At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters.
Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses. Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets. How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.
Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization. Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?
On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates. Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates. Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest. Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes). How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference? The caucus factor is at work again. Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?
Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively. Fourteen states had caucuses — Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses. The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters. In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race.
The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses. The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points. The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points. This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.
The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor. The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results. Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin. Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound. Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points. If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.
Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries. In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded. In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast. In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates. A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary. With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.
The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states. The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results.
Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries.
Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states. The Democrats have allowed the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.
This will result in certain disaster in the fall.
– Lynette Long
BIO: Dr. Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist practicing in Bethesda, Maryland. She is the author of twenty books including fourteen math books. Dr. Long has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and was the host of One on One with Dr. Lynette Long. She recently published Op-Ed’s in both USA Today and the Baltimore Sun about the current election cycle. Her blog is LynetteLong.com.
O2 began taking pre-orders for Apple’s new iPhone 3G through its website early Monday but was forced halt the service just hours later as UK consumers flooded the carrier’s servers and quickly consumed initial supplies.
barky is using Steves “Reality Distortion Field” for evil.
Could someone explain why in the Texas caucus only 41% of the vote was counted.
the count stopped at 41% because the turn out during that day greatly exceeded expectations and the capacity to count the votes properly. most of the caucus locations cannot accomodate the thousands who show up to caucus. and therefore, the election officials gave up counting the votes for the highly populated caucuses.
the caucus system cannot work for states with a large population. the party didn’t provide the infrastructure to deal with the turn out. as a result, people were disenfranchised by the party.
the turnout was greater too because hillary took steps to organize her supporters to caucus in Texas after realizing what the obama campaign were up to with caucus states.
when hillary’s campaign successfully organized her supporters, that’s when the caucus fraud started to be exposed because the process was no longer dominated by obama campaign.
The reality is that Hillary campaign did not care about the Caucus results, she did not have any plans past Super Tuesday. Her Campaign Manager even thought the battles up to Super Tuesday were winner take all. Rather than pay them the millions they billed they should be refunding what they have already been paid. The Hillary campaign underestimated the Caucus States. Obama did not. She lost.
she did not lose… they both do not have the total delegates necessary to win the nomination. the superdelegates have not cast their vote yet, and until then, there is no nominee… contrary to what the you have been brainwashed to believe.
i agree that hillary’s campaign had underestimated the caucuses. but after regrouping and firing the the former campaign manager ms. de solis (who now is a apart of the obama campaign) they have made significant victories in all the later states all the way to the end. despite being heavily outspent 2-1 or 3-1 she reclaimed the popular vote across the MAJORITY of demographic types. the primary was a tie by any objective assessment of the results.
only those who choose to short cut the democratic process claim that she’s lost. she suspended her campaign for party unity despite having the rules bent unfavorably against her. obama supporters should get their head out of the gutter and be thankful for her grace, and not spiteful.
Then why was the caucus certified?
it is the DNC you are talking about…
ask them why?
the DNC/RBC leaders have been in the tank for obama…
I have but the states certify elections not the dnc or rnc.
certified only the 41% that were counted ?
Heck of a job Deanie.
Washington state has been the one state overlooked regarding deliberate fraud in the nominating process
Washing ton State has both a primary and a caucus. For reasons I can not understand only the Caucus counts for delegates to the democrat convention.
Here are the results which reflect beyond a doubt that one person one vote doesn’t count in Washington State.
Primary Feb 19th
Obama……51,22%….354112 votes
Hillary… 45.67%….315744
Caucus Feb 9th
Obama……68%……..13209 votes ……Del 68
Hillary….31%………6409…………..Del 27
As you can see the spread in the primay is 6 points but didn’t count.
In the caucus where Chicago style intimidation and bully tactics by Obama Brownshirts the spread is an enormous 37%
When reporting this story on primary night the MSM such as the NY times reported the primary as a caucus but showed the popular vote. This was how they could mask the fact that the primary was so close but the delegate total so out of proportion to the popular vote.
Where I come we call that fraud and deception!
The first Caucus I went to in WA said you had to be there by 9 and it would over between 1 and 2. LOL We didn’t get out of there until about six thirty. After that they ran a little smoother but that first one was a killer.
The Caucus I attended was held in the main dining room at the elementary school. There wasn’t enough room and many people simply left. The organized chanting by Obama supporters plus the booing caused many Clinton supporters to get up and flee the mob.
I heard reports of this kind of chaos and intimidation at many of the locations.
The way they had it set up is that anybody old and infirm couldn’t get in the door. The ones that were there were most uncomfortable.
yeah mine was too. An at the second caucus for some unknown reason half the chairs ended up being transfered to another location a couple days before the caucus even though the organizers asked for at least 1000 chairs on site. There were fewer than 500 chairs available caucus morning. There was a lot of standing around people.
Same story in Hawaii. The place was so crowded, they sent one precinct outdoors into the dead of night to vote. Older folks in attendance supporting Hillary left as it was too dark for them to see anything. I tried to cajole them into staying, but they were very uncomfortable in the setting. The mere mention of BO sent the crowd cheering. They intimidated the older portion of the population, and there were folks in that room that I’ve never seen before nor since. Interesting…
Thanks for the mathematical breakdown Dr. Long.
How about an investigation in to the New York results. No fuss has been made because Hillary lost the overall campaign but does anyone really think Obama did not get one vote from the Bronx? Not one? Yeah right.
You didn’t have a caucus so what’s your point?
A few votes in the Bronx is not going to make a 37% difference in the overall popular vote
Bronx folks are smarter than people give them credit for. They know the emperor has no clothes.
So what you’re saying is
Obama is the
‘Emperor with no clothes”
I agree with you Meileen
there you go believing everything you read and hear again…
The WA State democratic leadership was bought off by Obama — well before the caucus.
The VOTERS of WA chose the Primary and funded the primary — the WA State leadership disregarded the voters wishes and forced us to use the old caucus system which Obama had whored.
In my caucus ALL the leaders/officials were Obamabutts — and the fix was in from the start.
There is no longer a democrat party in WA state — it is the Obamacrat party.
The proof is the huge difference between the caucus results and the primary results. The voters were ignored — the Party leaders chose Obama and the Party leaders do not give a damn what the voters want.
The Democrat party will pay for their arrogance and GREED in November.
new troll talking points: distract. yawn.
Thank you for the continuing good work, Dr. Long.
I still cannot figure how this is legal. Are the Dems just totally nuts?
I’ve always maintained that Caucuses are intimidating to the average American. For instance, I couldn’t see my parents in their early 90’s, who’ve ALWAYS voted, spend time at a caucus. They’re not about to be bullied and they don’t feel it’s anyone else’s business who they vote for.
Caucuses are unAmerican and clearly go against the one citizen / one vote philosophy.
Caucuses should be outlawed. Who wants to spend that much time letting a bunch of zealots try to cram their opinion down your throat? It’s the purest form of intimidation that I’ve ever seen and should be illegal.
The response of Obamabots to your complaints abour caucuses is “your parents just don’t care enough about voting then.” I’ve heard that dozens of times since January.
Of course, you’re right. There’s a reason we don’t use caucuses in elections for Governor, Senator, Congress, State Legislator, President, etc. They are Un-Democratic. They encourage intimidation and they discourage participation. Both of which needed to be done to hand Obama the nomination.
Amen.
One bot said ‘it’s the purest form of democracy’. Huh? I’d say it’s the purest form of intimidation and jack-booted thug tactics.
Obama hasn’t worked for a thing in the primary. It’s ALL been handed to him. I’d venture a guess he’s never worked a day in his life.
I’m really sick of the story about his mother being on food stamps - all the while he was in high-end prep schools. If it’s not an out-and-out lie, then his mother was defrauding the government. I’m sick of his lies in his ads. I’m sick of his pretending that he actually ever did a thing in office. Clearly he’s not done jack SHIT in the US Senate.
He just needs to go away. I want so badly for him to be defeated - and soundly defeated - that I can just taste it. I’m glad I’m no longer a Dem because I’d be embarrassed to be a Dem with him as
THE Chosen Onecandidate. At least as an independent, I can hold my head high and say I didn’t vote for him nor did I support the thugs who put him into office, IF he were to win. (Throwing up in the back of my mouth at that thought)You know, he went to his school on scholarship. So it’s not like he was just wealthy and still taking food stamps. His mother was working and going to school at at the same time and needed help.
You’re really going to criticize him for this??? He was lucky enough to get the chance to go to a good school.
Laura, my Daddy always said - an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure!
BOBO’ banker Grandma sent him to a ritzy Hawaiian prep school at the age of ten. Please stop with the Poor BOBO grew up poor routine. He didn’t.
I criticize him because he’s lying in his tv ads. I’m sick of his lying - all of us are.
He’s a liar and a cheat. He’s not worthy of the POTUS
He was living with his grandparents, when his mother was getting food stamps.
Do you know anything about Obama? everything I see you say is usually wrong and uninformed.
The DNC, DONNA BRAZILE and Coward Dean set all this up so Obama would win, the value of your vote changes within a State with Urban voters having more clout. READ THIS, written by DONNA BRAZILE on NOV. 5, 2004, it’s called “WHY AMERICANS HATE DEMOCRATS” How To Tap Into The Obama Factor. They thought Obama could tap into the Church Vote, too bad they didn’t check Rev. Wright and Father Mike first. http://www.slate.com/id/2109328
very interesting. so Obama and his crew were planning to take over GWBs faith-initiative program from the get-go. and Brazille was pushing Obama since back in 04 — and she was already to ditch democracy in favor of her boy when the FL Republicans fooled around with the primary date, knowing it would lead to chaos and division for the Dems. It’s also interesting that the Dem FL legislator who co-sponsored the Repub cchange-the-date legislation was an early Obama supporter.
We had caucuses in Minnesotta. There was ZERO intimidation. It was all very cheerful and fun.
I don’t disagree that caucuses exclude some people. But I don’t know where the idea that somehow people get intimidated developed.
Bullshit Alert!!!!!!
It was all cheerful and fun. And there were no ickly elderly people or boring people with jobs or kids at home to take care of, just a bunch of fun-loving kids standing around sharing stories about their latest concert trips an’ stuff. Oh, and then we voted, that part was kind of a drag but like, it was kind of expected too. So we voted for this Obomber guy, ’cause get this, he’s BLACK if that isn’t the coolest I don’t know what is! Also, the other person was some old lady.
Earth to Laura: The “idea” that “somehow people get intimidated” came from hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness accounts. You are an incredibly oblivious person, unless you are kidding.
Don’t forget there were no Milatary people that were actually away fighting for our country.
military
couldn’t have said it better.
USA! USA! USA!
so the whole state got together in one room eh?
And it was cheerful and fun! And then they all had cookies and KOOLAID!!
Keep drinking the kool-aid! We know people were intimidated in the various caucuses and there are pending law suits to that effect.
Where ?
Oh good heavens, Laura West! Do you think a timid 90 year old woman would go into a group of raging pirhana, many who are societies’ marginal members, who are intent upon ‘convincing’ her who she would vote for??? And do you think she’d spend hours with these freaks? Give me a friggin’ break!
She wants to go, vote in private, and go home. Caucuses not only exclude but intimidate. Caucuses will only appeal to the political zealots who are intent upon winning by intimidation
correct. the intimidation factor is impossible to deny, and anyone who does so is being willfully ignorant.
I worked a caucus for the Obama campaign and there was no intimidation. The fact was there were tons of Obama volunteers and not a single volunteer for Hillary. I’m not saying that caucuses aren’t silly but the fact is they exist. And the Obama campaign knew they would be important and acted accordingly, by actually organizing for them. Hillary lost this election partly because she didn’t plan on the contest lasting as long as it did. She and her advisors believed the “she’s inevitable” hype. What’s funny is Hillary’s entire campaign was based on her competence and being ready on day one, yet she wasn’t ready for the drawn out election. The parallels to our situation in Iraq are scary.
Barack Obama: EXPOSED!
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO121
It’s not cool to jack names.
I agree, caucuses are too easy to manipulate. I still have no idea who the punks were at mine. They certainly weren’t military and they obviously weren’t farmers with waxed eyebrows and red Italian leather motorcycle jackets.
“Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence than voters in primaries”
And there lies BO’s strategy and his ability to maximize the benefits of the crazy caucuses–they open the door to allow all kinds of cheating and stealing. Did he abuse the system, they’ll say that it depends on what you call abuse. Regardless, the last statement by Long is correct, this may have won him the nomination but never the general election. The Democratic Party has lost so many of us due to this insanity and its cowardice. We have been voting for 30 years as Democrats, not this time. Clinton or McCain.
Dr. Long
If there were only 2.8 million votes cast and you have published books on mathemathics— How do you explain that almost 3 million people voted for Hillary. Your facts are skewed!
I live in Washington state and I have to agree with this post. In fact I think that most of teh states that held caucuses if investigated would find the same issues. not only is the caucus system not representitive of the actual will of the voters (only a small sub-set) it is absolutley prone to undue influencing and bully tactics.
Obama played it like a game and took advantage but something tells me he still loses. “We the People” tend to look down on bullies and cheats!
http://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/
Obama is such a phony! His hair is grayer today then it was yesterday. God I hate phony ass people. That goes for you too believe!
lol.
I don’t get it…his hair is gray so he’s a phony???
Figure it out idiot!!!!
He’s been dying his hair to appear new, young and fresh for the primaries against Hillary, now he wants to appear experienced, mature, more presidential against McCain in the GE, get it? Your Barky is a fucking chameleon. Damn, you are a newbie aren’t you? Hoping Barky will pop your political cherry?
BOBO in a bottle.
OMG that’s exactly what I thought when I saw the recent pictures of him–He is the consummate performer. He was dying his hair! The DNC has reduced this election to a tabloid popularity contest. B. Hussein is a man with no morals or conscience.
“Typical white nurse: He was dying his hair!”
Remember, only his hair dresser knows for sure.
He was dying it dip shit.
Hey,
Whatever happened to the birth certificate being a fake? I keep watching CNN and waiting for the Breaking News announcement.
And…what about the Whitey Tape? Is that going to be coming out anytime soon? Cause this site lost all its credibility after that mess. It would be nice for it to come out and help you guys out.
Just curious.
Both of these items are fringe fodder. Neither is needed to discredit Senator Obama and his campaign. His words and actions suffice.
Like I said…I hate phony ass people!
All in good time, little one, all in good time. Didn’t you get the memo, the GOP never rolls out a new “product” in the summertime. You’re new to this political thingy.
birth certificate: a clever rouse by obambi…but leads to a serious question as to whether he is a “natural born” american. My guess is that he was born in canada. Dual citizenship here as well.
whitey tape. the republicans don’t want to help HRC get the nomination, so they are holding it until after the convention. since you were born yesterday you haven’t read the history , so do so before you make any more of an ass out of yourself.
hey, how’s that FISA reversal going? HOw about OBama backing off on choice, even going against the supreme court? how about his withdrawal from iraq withdrawal, eh? how much more of his lying ass are you going to defend?
oh, i forgot, its a sexual thing.
“Slide Deployment Forced Obama Plane to Land”
Someone was mad as hell and couldn’t take it anymore.
Either that or some flight attendant was so transfixed by being in the presence of the Anointed One that he/she forgot to disarm the damn door!
If so, it is yet another instance of inattention and blind hero-worship so commonly seen among his disciples!
The caucus gives an undue influence to a small percentage of people who participate, many of them activists; when you compare them to a primary, the voter field gets wider and more diverse, and when compared to a GE, it gets wider still. I think the democrats will find that by setting up their system to be gamed in this fashion, they may be losing an election in a year made for them to win. Too bad that I have no confidence that they will learn anything from this - we’ll probably have the same crap system in 4 years.
There’s a story around about how Obama’s grandfather wanted him “mentored” by someone. It didn’t exactly sound like The Boys Club either. The guy turns out to have been a member of the communist party. What’s with that family anyway?
This is bullshit.
Maybe you should read Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My father, which is where that smear comes from. You don’t have to buy it, obviously. You can find it at the library for free.
Doesn’t BOBO idealize the father who left his family when he was two as a goat herd? LOL If that’s true then BOBO is essentially trying to turn his dead beat dad into and noble savage even though the guy would have had to be ranked in the top classes of Kenya to get to go to the USA to study for an advanced degree.
He wrote a whole book about his father. And his father was BOTH a goat herder and an accomplished economist. He presents both sides of the man.
Uh huh. Sure. And he ran out on Barky and Barky’s underaged mother. What a guy. That’s why he was raised by his white grandparents and his mother was on foodstamps. A real manly man there.
Did you read the book??????????
The whole thing is how his Dad really dissappointed him. You should really read it if you are going to comment on it.
how could BOBO’s father have disappointed him. BOBO didn’t know him. He was two when dear old dad left and BOBO only saw him once again at 10. The guy was a complete stranger.
I tried to, but his ghost writer was so bad I couldn’t stomach it.
Oh and by the by, the guy who did the Willie Horton ad is (I kid you not) ‘test marketing’ different passages from Obama’s book to see which of his less than savory lines will offend the most voters this fall. Could it be his drug use or his hatred of all this white…hmmmmm…only time will tell.
of course, you idiot. and of course he was disappointed. but he grew up a bitter man because of it, and because of his mother and white grandparents. that is why he has a problem with women, and in particular white women.
he is an arrogant punk ass trying to pass himself off as some great messiah. and people like you feed this egomaniac. better wake up, you’re already eating your own words, troll.
BOBO don’t know his father. His father abandoned the family and BOBO grew up elsewhere. BOBO saw him only once around the age of ten. I have serious doubts that BOBO presents both sides of anything.
No! Remember another Forrest Gump insert yourself in history moment…..JFK was responsible for getting Blah Blahs dad to the US!!
Not sure what dreams he got from his father, except to be an abusive junkie.
since you read the book, you better reread when he talks about his mention Frank, the poet.
**Google Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s grandfather, communist**
So your father’s not around (left or died, either) and your family’s not enough to shape you? I don’t get this grandfather person’s motivation.
Caucuses are cheaper to hold than primaries. It is also known as a “party builder”.to get people excited about the elections. But I just think that is a cover for the money angle.
What generally happens are the caucuses are given so much weight that whoever wins, along with urban areas ends up with the nomination. However, what usually happens is the nominee looses the general election What we saw is that states voting later in the primaries, usually the big swing states went for Clinton. Thus that would be a better indicator of who was in the best position for the general. Even those primary states had their difficulty. A vote in Philadelphia carried more influence than a vote in Erie PA.Even though Obama lost the state by 10 points, Clinton did not gain that much in net delegates awarded.
The SD’s had a choice to either go against their own loosing primary system or focus on the swing state and primary states that were similar to the general election. But of course ..stupid is as stupid does.
The excuse that those that don’t go to caucuses are not real voters or democrats does not play out in the general election. That is when the real vote counts for office. It is just like the youngins not to see the forest from the trees. The elderly do vote in large percentages in the general election whether they go to caucuses or not. The elderly I know from NE Ohio are probably going to vote for McCain. They were all Hillary supporters. States with large percentages of seniors, CA, OH, PA, FL, NY, NJ. Count the electoral college for those states alone. Then add the seniors who didn’t caucus in those states and how will they vote?
John McCain is a senior. Maybe the seniors will play identity politics this year.
There is no doubt in my mind that the caucus system is a very poor approach and should be eliminated ASAP so that it does not impact another election. That said, to pretend that somehow the system was designed so Obama would win is a bit nuts. After all, other than Texas, the exact same 13 states had caucuses in ‘04 as well. Not to mention the fact (that everyone forgets nowadays) the Clintons owned the Democratic party until a few months ago.
So, yes, caucuses bad. Get rid of them before ‘13 primaries. But don’t believe that they are part of some Obama conspiracy.
No he just knew how to rig it so he won. Bozo. Don’t tell me what I saw.