NO.

or answer that question.  These are the rules.  We play by the rules.  We accept the results.

If we don't like the rules, we work like dawgs to make sure they are changed before the next primary.

Of course not.  But then Obama's lawyer will fight you on that.

And where did you get those polls? Did it come from college Universities again, and ignoring the rural areas?

BS

Simple answer, YES.

Complicated answer, caucuses are a convoluted process.  They are not necessarily characteristic of the view of the state but rather are characteristic of the people who take the time to participate in them.  That said, I have long said that if Terry McAuliffe and co. had such a problem with them, he could have advocated change when he was head of the DNC.  

It seems few people had a problem with the process until it favored one person...

The time to change things is not mid-season...

This is why the Clinton popular vote argument is specious.
While she says all the votes must be counted she is also saying that voters in IA, WA, NV, ME don't count so let's disenfranchise four states.

Good Grief!

For a clear argument why this argument is failing to sway the supers head on over to fivethirtyeight.com

I've always found it perplexing that Clinton's argument is she leads among people who didn't vote. What's next, John McCain declaring himself the victor based on the fetus demographic?

And Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine are all states in which Obama is very popular right now.

Clearly, if you counted the caucus results in those states, Obama would still come out ahead in the so-called "popular vote" metric.  

The fact the those states haven't released the numbers show that they never believed nor believe now that "popular vote" is relevant in determining the democratic nominee.  

If Clinton truly wants all the votes counted, she should be arguing for the 4 states to release the popular vote results.  It shouldn't matter that she's going to come out on the loser's end, it's about determining the "will of the voters."  If that's case, how can we not count those 4 states?  Any popular vote metric without those 4 states is not legitimate in any possible way.

Just to clarify, the analysis of the polling data wasn't done by me, but by Phaedrus, a poster at Dkos.  Here's a link to his very illuminating diary on polls and electability.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/19/ 183541/248/20/517635

Did he win all the caucus States? Hillary didn't win a single caucus State??? Not ONE?

If Clinton is right, then, you would expect that in general election polling against McCain, Clinton would be doing as equally well or even better than Obama against McCain.  That would be evidence that the caucuses didn't truly reflect the will of the state's voters.

The best method would be to compare the caucus results to polling done at the time of the caucus where the question was something along the lines of, "If there were a primary, who would you vote for?"  The most accurate comparison would be a situation like the Texas primary (which Hillary won by three points) and the Texas caucus (which Obama won by ten points).

Your method, comparing old caucus results with GE polling done months later is full of problems.  You are not looking at the candidates head-to-head (which happens in a primary) and a lot of time (and other events) has gone by and voters may have changed their minds.

All that said, his caucus wins are legitimate.  He followed the rules and won the delegates fair and square.  After the GE, we need to take a hard look at this primary cycle and figure what worked and what needs to be changed.

I understand your point, but that's not my logic, it's Clinton's logic.  She's been arguing that her primary wins in states like PA and Ohio means she stands a stronger chance of winning those states against McCain in the general election.  She then refers to polls showing that she is doing better in those states against McCain than Obama.

However, she's been arguing that we can't use Obama's caucus wins to make the inference that he would win those states in the general election, because caucuses reflect the will of democratic activists, not of the voters of the state.  

So, using her logic, I wanted to see how well Obama is doing against McCain compared to HRC in those caucus states.  And in each of those states, Obama is doing better in all, and significantly better in many.

As an Obama supporter, I don't know how anyone could look at the data and not conclude that caucuses significantly favor Obama.  In every state with both a primary and a caucus, Obama has done significantly better in the caucus.  Also, his wins in caucus states are way out of proportion to his wins in similar primary states.  Texas, with both a caucus and a primary that both mattered on the same date, seems dispositive.

Now, what any of this means as to the legitimacy of these wins is an entirely different issue.

Obama's caucus wins?  No, they shouldn't count.  And we shouldn't count the caucus attendees either because they might mess up that popular vote metric.  Or delegates for that matter.  Or fundraising.  Or who ran a better campaign. Nor should we consider the number of new voters brought into the process by that other guy.  The only thing that should really matter are the voters of West Virginia, well all the voters of West Virginia except for both of their senators who endorsed that other guy, we shouldn't count them either.

Caucuses are fraud

these caucases have been going on for DECADES, and now they are flawed!  

mirror, mirrow on the wall, who's the most treacherous of them all?!?