He's still up, regardless of them.

It's a non-issue because it doesn't factor into him winning the delegate counts, as far as I can tell.

I agree that caucuses have problems.  They appeal to a democratic ideal, with a highly interested public passionately defending candidates and ideas, that we just haven't fully reached.  For now, a single-transferable vote system would maintain some of the best aspects of caucuses and would get rid of the problematic points.

But, it's not as if Clinton didn't know they were coming.  The fact that her ground game has been so thoroughly schooled by Obama's is still stunning, to me, as my expectations a month or two before Iowa was that she was going to absolutely crush her competition, with the backing of so many party leaders (read: governors and mayors).  

Exactly. I have always been opposed to causcuses and I still am despite my support for Obama. I am willing to wager that at least two thirds of these Hillary supporters wouldn't have had a problem with caucuses if Hillary won most of them.

Also, watch the Obama people all of a sudden find superdelagates to be not such a horrible thing as Obama gets more superdelegate support.

in the founding principles of our country. For one - I don't believe in one person, one vote, because that doesn't exist, hasn't existed and likely won't exist.

I don't believe mob rule is the method by which to run a successful government; for one, it allows people to sweep to power and immediately have control of everything.

Parliamentary systems and direct-elections have faced far more dictatorships and tyranny than our government.

And I'm very Hamiltonian in my views, combined with the original principles of the Democratic-Republic. Democrats believe in a stronger central government and more influence from government. We are a representative democracy and a Democratic Republic.

Popular vote doesn't decide elections and up until the early 1900s, the Senators weren't elected by a popular vote either.

And the only reason that changed was because state legislatures took forever to pick their senators, otherwise it'd still be that way - and with the ease of modern day travel likely wouldn't be a problem today.

I don't trust the people and the last eight years have evidenced that precisely. Two elections where the worst human being to ever occupy the Presidency was enabled; three elections where majorities were given to a party that is vicious in its attacks and so disgustingly corrupt that it makes usual government corruption look heavenly.

I never thought I'd yearn for the Reagan years but after Bush 43 years, I'd take them in a heartbeat.

So no - I don't trust the American people; I'm Hamiltonian in that respect.

And while I believe caucuses need to be more transparent, I firmly believe that the initiative and care that it takes to show up to a caucus is what should decide our elections.

I don't want people to be able to vote in 5 minutes. I don't want them to be able to vote in 10.

Do you realize that a simple button press will help decide how thousands of people in Asia and Africa will be effected? How millions of Americans will be treated and effected?

To have someone walk into a both and push the "All Democratic" or "All Republican" button is the single most disgusting thing to me.

I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Republicans; I have showed up at caucuses and I have voted in primaries.

I am an activist and I don't trust the American people - they gave us eight years of Bush, eight years of Reagan and two elections of Nixon who used the Southern Strategy.

The racist party filled with corrupt individuals has been given this country for 28 years out of 40. That's enough evidence for why the general election and everything in general needs to be geared towards having people become more involved with their votes.

I understand working class people - that's why I believe elections need to be held on three days: Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

But those things aren't going to change easily and aren't likely to change ever.

And we have to elect someone who can win those contests (winner take all, and by majority in each state) - and as I said above, regardless of the nefarious caucus states, Senator Obama is the person whose done it.

1) I didn't include Arkansas or West Virginia as I was mentioning places where Senator Obama wasn't blown out. But yes, that does close the gap a bit - but still with those states included, Senator Obama will lead without caucuses.

2) Guam is a caucus in name only; Kansas is a different type of caucus. I list them as they're listed on the Democratic website.

3) I only list contests sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. That may change in a week or two but I don't predict and I don't include figures not sanctioned by the contest. To do otherwise would be silly. The most likely scenarios are they are either split 50/50 or half delegations are seated.

In the end, Michigan and Florida will receive punishments and if you want to get into unfair, these elections are as unfair as they get.

International standards demand that a person be able to campaign in a state or country and that contracts be upheld. When you sign a contract saying these contests won't count, you can't count them unless that decision is reversed.

It hasn't been reversed and it won't be reversed in a method that would effect the outcome of the election.

To do otherwise would make the claim of caucuses being unfair hypocrisy.

4) Actually, seeing the results from WA and NE before Hillary Clinton began assigning care to states that are usually deemed as fly-over and after showcases what I supported above.

That the reason Senator Clinton lost those contests is simple - she didn't assign care to them.

Once February had passed and Senator Obama had already ran up the score, Senator Clinton engaged in a late-game strategy that was unfortunately late - people who support her began a massive GOTV in states she would likely get blown out in since Senator Obama spent loads of time and money and resources there.

Nebraska and Washington, despite not being apart of her plans, still received attention from people who wanted to make a point and wanted to GOTV.

The problem is, they were a day late and a dollar short.

The better showcasing of how meaningless the difference is is Texas, where both netted enough delegates to almost offset one another.

The impact of activism is minimal; if Senator Clinton had one or two more weeks and could focus on the Texas Caucus like Senator Obama did, they would have tied or won it.

Simply put: it's Senator Clinton's campaign's fault.

I don't recognize the criticism of caucuses because as evidenced again above - time spent there reduces the vote totals; primaries in caucus areas still favor Senator Obama and the metrics are being changed by everyone here over and over.

So now caucuses need to be primaries and states also need to be winner take all and only popular vote should count.

It really doesn't matter the metric - Senator Obama usually wins. Winner take all. Only primaries. Sanctioned contests. Unsanctioned contests.

The only way Senator Clinton claims victory is if Michigan's Uncommitted Vote totals don't go to Senator Obama and then she says she has the most votes.

That's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard.

I love Senator Clinton but I have a great memory. I've remembered every single metric change.

And it doesn't work when you can't commit to one.

But you could be a bit more civil and less crude about it.

Some people believe strongly in this, despite the obvious changes and goalpost movements. People are deeply invested in this primary and their candidate.

So we need to keep the discussion free of things that could incite vulgar discourse.