caucuses seriously suck!

1: secret ballot
2: now waiting around you can vote for president and leave if you want to

True it had a shorter time period and a higher barrier to vote (no absentee ballots) but it it cost the state a lot less money too and we are a billion in the whole and cutting higher ed (fuck T-Paw)

It is in MN and if you insinuate that it is fraud filled I ask you which of the over 10k lakes do you want to be thrown into...  We are consistently among the highest turnout states in the nation and we are the longest running blue state.  There is not a very high likely hood that streak will be broken.

You are comparing caucuses and primaries that are weeks apart. Apples and oranges to begin with.

To see if one is really unfair, you need to have corresponding polling data to see if at the time the results are skewed, to see if the results vary greatly from the results.

Unless you have date corresponding data, you really can only make assumptions from a couple of events that are divided by time and emphasis (presidential delegate choices v local stuff).

I just posted the (un) democratic party saying (more or less) the same thing!!!

Totally agree.

The results of a meaningless primary are just that...meaningless.

It cannot be known how many don't vote because it doesn't matter, so any conclusions drawn from this comparison are inherently faulty.

and state that the results do not matter, you invalidate that election's results.

We'll find out on June 3 how well Obama does up there in real primaries... if Obama bothers to even show up, that is.

November could be really really terrible...

Eliminate the caucuses in 2012.  They are an impediment to the Democratic process of selecting nominee.  Remove Superdelegates from the process, remove pledged delegates from the process, and go just by the popular vote.

This process is insane and inane.

The people in this primary knew that their votes would not count.  It's an interesting result but it's not one that someone can use as proof of anything without more analysis.  

Thanks for the Nebraska report, Markjay. Excellent analysis.

So why didn't Hillary bother organizing for the majority of the caucuses?  If the Nebraska results are indicative of anything, she would have locked up the nomination a month ago.  

Its amazing such an unknown, empty suit, unelectable candidate has beaten Team Clinton.  If anyone should have known the rules, it would have been the Clintons.  Hats off to the guy, he ran a great campaign!    

Can someone explain to me how this primary is important since people knew it didn't count or is this the new FLA and MI thing by us Clinton supporters? I need to know in order to be on the talking points.

Thanks for the excellent analysis, Markjay. If the caucuses BO won are not discounted and he ends up getting the nomination based on the delegates from red state caucuses, we have a recipe for disaster. Primaries are far better predictors of GE results and Hillary performed splendidly where it counts. Ignore the facts at your peril, SDs.

There is actually a reason for this. As we documented, the game of hard ball played by Obama's caucus people was unacceptable by any reasonable standards of democratic society.

I'm not really that into nominating someone with a campaign that has to use fraud to win.

The process was made before anyone knew who it would benefit.  There have been primaries and caucuses in this process for decades.  You can't change the rules after the game.

News flash: the electoral college winner is elected President, not the popular vote winner.  You think you will be able to change that rule after the fact too?  Cause you won't.

In keeping with the spirit of the DNC rules that require selection processes to "encourage the participation of all Democrats," the DNC made a stunning announcement that no further consideration would be made for seating the FL & MI delegates.  

Democratic voter turnouts in those states clearly fell well below national averages, clearly indicating those processes were not in keeping with the spirit of the Rules.  HRC supporters were herewith encouraged to STFU about FL & MI if they're going to complain about NE.

Obama won the caucus -- Obama won the primary.  Seems like the caucus accurately reflected the will of the people of Nebraska.  You're just arguing about the margin in terms of delegates.  

I thought delegates were an inherently undemocratic metric as well?  You folks need to get your arguments straight so you at least tell a consistent story.

award electoral votes any way they please, as observed in the Constitution and confirmed by Bush v. Gore.  I suggest we lobby the 23 states with legislatures where Democrats control both houses to institute caucuses to decide the allotment of those state's electoral votes.  (We should ask them to hold beauty contests, too, just to give the people the sense that their aspirations actually matter.)

(the caucus was on Feb. 9th) and did not mistake Nevada and Nebraska.  Otherwise this diary is completely full of shit, b/c it ignores the effect the Senate primary may of had on the presidential preference primary.  Moreover, it does not acknowledge the numbers of people who did not show up b/c this primary did not allocate delegates.  You're reaching.

markjay, get your facts straight.

"In the Feb. 14 Nevada caucus, the results were:
Obama: 68% (26,126 votes) (16 delegates)
Clinton: 32% (12,445) (8 delegates)
Vote margin: 13,681"

First off, it was Nebraska, not Nevada.

Secondly, those totals are STATE DELEGATES, not individual voters.  The actual count of caucus participants is much higher.

The rules have been on the books since long before the nomination process began. The whining, however, began after the shock of Super Tuesday and hasn't abated since is like so many .

If one of the candidates didn't know the rules when they got involved in this process, I don't want that person as my president.

Like Florida and Michigan, I would hesitate to take to heart the results of an election whose participants know ahead of time that it won't count for anything.

A very important question that you not surprisingly don't ask is this:

Why does Clinton do so poorly in caucuses?

She and her campaign new that