I'm looking at the TX election results page on the NY Times. They give the primary results and the caucus results for Texas. There is very little reporting in from the caucuses yet (13%) and the percentages there are inverted and distorted compared to the primary:
Primary:
HRC: 50.8%
BHO: 47.4%
Caucuses:
HRC: 46.0%
BHO: 53.9%
Now, every person who votes in a caucus is already supposed to have voted in the primary, so the caucus represents a sub-set of all primary voters - those who know about the caucus and and can take the time to go there.
Let's set aside the various criminal acts Obama supporters have been committing in Texas to try to throw the caucuses (Makes you wonder what else they were doing in other caucus states). Let's just think about the comparison between the caucus numbers (assume, for the sake of argument, that they are real) and the primary numbers. When voters can vote during a long period of time throughout a day and when they can cast their voters in private, they vote for Hillary. When they have to show up at a specific time in a location that may or may not be a normal polling place, and they have to subject themselves to public harassment and intimidation, they vote for Obama.
Hmmm.
Could it be that The Golden One's caucus "victories" actually would have been Hillary primary victories? Could it be that the delegate count is abnormally skewed, with more delegates being awarded to The Precious than is warranted? Could it be that Golden Boy Barry really, truly wants to win the Democratic nomination the way Shrub won the general election, by losing the popular vote and clinging to an antiquated and anti-democratic electoral system?
I'm beginning to like the sound of revoting Michigan and Florida. No fucking caucus - a secret ballot open to all Democrats and ONLY Democrats. Make it like the general election and may the best Democrat win.
Anglachel
5 comments:
I absolutely agree on having new primaries in Florida and Michigan, and they must be CLOSED, or otherwise the Republicans would choose our nominee. Those two states' voters cannot be disenfrancised.
And how can anyone now make a credible case that Obama would run better than Clinton in any key industrial state?
Final add: Caucuses are the most undemocratic voting idea I have ever seen in a democracy.
Good stuff. Superdelegates should not be intimidated by caucus results. Caucuses don't represent the majority of the voters.
Also, let's not forget that Clinton has a lock on older voters. And they have the hardest time caucusing. (Along with working class people who can't get off work to go). This has always been the problem with caucuses for Clinton. Her base is the least likely to be able to attend them.
I went to Obama's site the night before the Texas/Ohio election, and the bloggers were all telling the Texas people to get to the caucus sites early and lock out the Hillary voters.
Sure enough, I heard that was happening the next day, so I wrote to Hillary's campaign. If they do take legal action about "change you can cheat with", they should get a hold of those blog transcripts.
And anyway, I have not heard a single explanation for the purpose of making the same pool of people vote twice (you had to vote in the primary to vote in the caucus in Texas).
They should have to have a rationale for that. On the basis of winning slightly more of 100,000 caucus votes, Obama is going to end up with more texas delegates even though Hillary won the primary of 2.5 million. It makes NO sense.
Post a Comment