I would agree with this if Clinton got into a time machine, traveled back two years, and changed the system before it suddenly didn't work out to her advantage.

there is nothing to discuss, obama won by the rules that were made

What I don't understand is that Obama supporters tell me I'm not a Democrat because I can think. When I say caucuses are unfair and offer a way to INCLUDE MORE people into the process for two states they say NO. Who is not the Democrat now?

You people sicken me.

I don't get the anger over the caucus, even though I think they should be done away with in the future.  Both candidates came in knowing what needed to be done.  Clinton wasn't nearly as successful b/c she didn't organize.  It's not some conspiracy, she just didn't expect to have to do much more than the big states.  It's not like the rules were changed on her at the last minute.  Both had an equal opportunity.

BTW, part of Hillary's appeal to Democrats is Bill.  They come as a duo.  There is no way of not associating the two.

My God, the comments here are amazing. The fact that people are actually saying 700,000 votes are worthless, but we will happily take 250,000, this is just sad. We call ourselves Democrats?

This is not about rules people. This is about the American people and our right to vote. It is about our right to be heard. It is about include as much people in the process as possible. Considering what Obama has been able to do this cycle, I would think is supporters will support counting at least the Washington primary if not counting the TX and WA only. Instead you wave around "rules" and say it is unfair. You call bull.

hania rated one of my comments a zero, and since a select few cannot see 0-rated comments and I would like everyone to read my comments, I will post it again.

-----

What I don't understand is that Obama supporters tell me I'm not a Democrat because I can think. When I say caucuses are unfair and offer a way to INCLUDE MORE people into the process for two states they say NO. Who is not the Democrat now?

You people sicken me.

For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the non-binding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection
process and is considered detrimental. State parties must take steps to educate the public that a
non-binding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential
candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.

Answer me this, if you had the opportunity to include more people in a process where the voice of the people mattered, wouldn't you do it? We have the opportunity to do that in one state and that is Washington state. Why are people against including more people in the process? Obama won the caucus, so what? He won the primary too, he will still get more delegates than Clinton.

caucuses do not reflect the popular vote period.

An appeal is out of the question, but the facts show some empirical evidence caucus "delegate" counts are not representative of the popular vote and do not necessarily produce a result truly indicative of one candidate's level of support.  For example, one NV caucus I observed was 2-1 Obama (only 3 people) - 67%/33% (66.67%/33.33% using the Orange rounding rules), yet one delegate was awarded to Obama - 100%/0%.  In another, Edwards had people, but not enough to meet the 15% threshhold, thus he ended up with Zero delegates.  A third in the same building had over 300 attendees, but 11 delegates - 100x the number of people attended than in the 3-person precinct, but only 11x the number of delegates.  Democratic?  I won't ponder because those are the rules - respresentative?  No.

Who do you "appeal" to?

I really don't believe what I am reading. I cannot believe people think this way. I cannot believe we do not want to include more people in the process. I simply cannot believe people do not care about Democracy. It truly saddens me.

An "appeal" implies that there is a legal or bylaws-based argument to be made here. There isn't. You just don't like the results.

I see Obama supporters are out in force attacking me because for some reason they don't want more people included in the process. After all their candidate has done this cycle. That amazes me. I'm not going to win this battle but at least I know I stand up for Democracy and the American people. I'm not going to comment in this diary anymore.

This is really, really dumb.

I say Obama needs to appeal in every state where her husbands name got her the local dem machine to help in her ground game.

Let think of it as passing a written oh on lets say physics exam.

Obama come by himself. And Hillary comes with her husband the widely know physicist, who sits behind her and helps.

You think this is a dumb idea? Well that how I feel about your "change the rules in mid election" diary.

I join in the call for Hillary to appeal the Texas and Washington caucuses.  I think that she should spend millions - whatever it takes - to pursue this worthy and assuredly fruitful path to victory.  She should make it the focus of her strategy going forward.  GO HILLS!!!

Rules is rules.

It can and should be a consideration among the super delegates; however, those delegates were selected under state party rules approved by the national party.

The fact that Obama blindsided Clinton in the caucuses is one of the greatest organizational coups of the Obama campaign.  Kudos!  And I am a Clinton supporter.

I know that a few others have already said as much, but you really can't change the rules after the relevant event has occured. Everyone involved--the candidates and the voters--would have behaved differently had different rules been in place (I say the same about FL and MI).

I realize that you have legitimate concerns about the caucus process and the extent to which their results reflect the will of a broader electorate, however there are also matters regarding procedural justice to consider. And, I think the unfairness associated with post facto rule changes clearly overrides the perceived problems with caucuses (primarily because those problems could have easily been addressed before the nomination process began).

First, since these are procedures that the national and state parties, along with the candidates, freely and voluntarily accepted well before the nomination process, one could argue that the candidates have waived any right to challenge the rules once the nomination process is underway (and even moreso after the caucus was held). Caucuses are not a recent invention, so the affected parties (including Clinton) were well aware of the issues that you're addressing. The time to raise these challenges would be before the candidates and voters proceeded in reliance upon the rules of the game.

And, unfortunately, many of Clinton's arguments seek some kind of amendment to previously accepted rules. For example, it was made apparent to the candidates and voters that Michigan and Florida contests would essentially be a beauty contest or straw poll. As a result, Obama didn't campaign, and some voters certainly abstained or voted in the republican primary rather than cast a meaningless vote in the dem primary. Not surprisingly, these were almost the only two states where turnout did not exceed republican turnout. This tends to confirm that some voters abstained or crossed-over due to their justifiable perception that the contest was meaningless.

For the record, though, I'm much more sympathetic to Florida because the movement of their primary's date was pushed by the republican legislature and governor. I have personally supported the seating of Florida's delegation as is so long as Michigan's delegates are split 50/50.

I would just add, in conclusion, that all these contests fall short of the democratic ideals to which we aspire in elections for public office, primarily because this is a nomination process and not an actual public election. The party approaches the design of the nomination process  with many objectives that may conflict with ideal democratic participation and representation. For one thing, we don't have a national primary in which everyone votes according to the same rules. Rather, it is a series of state contests, each with unique rules. And each states decides who should be able to participate? Just dems, or should we allow indies--or, additionally, republicans. Some states, like my state of SC, do not require party affiliation to vote in the primary because, well, we don't actual have party registration. We couldn't have closed primaries without changing our entire system of registration. Similarly, states differ in terms of primary v. caucus, whether early voting is allowed, whether the primary is mail-only, whether voting machines are utilized, etc.

I am a Raiders fan . . . and I HATED the "tuck rule" so I think my Raiders should be awarded the Super Bowl trophy from the Patriots that year.

I'm going back to Mohegan Sun and demanding my 100 dollars back...I think it was unfair that deuces were wild.