Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Idaho held a non-binding primary last night.  More than twice as many Democrats cast their votes in it as in the Idaho caucus on Feb 5.  But whereas Obama won the caucus by 62 points (79 to 17), he won the much larger primary by 18 (56 to 38), exactly the same margin as in the primaries in neighboring Utah and Oregon, both of which he also won by 18, suggesting that the margin may be an accurate reflection of a regional preference.

And even though more than twice as many people voted in the primary, Obama's margin in votes cast was also substantially smaller -- less than 8000 in the primary compared to more than 13,000 in the caucus.

The 44 point Obama-Clinton swing from caucus to primary confirms previous trends in Texas (20 point swing), Washington (32 point swing), and Nebraska (34 point swing).

Further evidence that the undemocratic caucus system is the basis for Obama's pledged delegate lead.

(Thanks to an anonymous commenter at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/s enior-surge.html for bringing this to our attention.)

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/results/e nr/statewide_total.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#ID

UPDATE: I corrected Obama's margin of victory in the caucus to 62 points.

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

91 Comments

Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Too little, too late

by Cochrane 2008-05-28 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I'm not sure why we, as Democrats, are complaining that one of our politicians learned the rules, planned for the rules, worked within the rules, used the rules to his dramatic advantage, and then won by the rules against enormous odds.

Isn't that exactly what we need in November? Isn't that exactly what we need in Washington?

by not Brit 2008-05-28 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I do not agree that the ability to run up large margins in low-turnout caucuses is relevant for November.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

But running up a large margin in Puerto Rico is???

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

You'll have to link to the place where I made that claim.  I can't recall it offhand.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Hillary supporters have said she should get the nomination because she will win the popular vote.

Well, the only way she can win any legitimate count of the popular vote is to get a big win in Puerto Rico.

So if Obama's caucus state wins are not relevant for the GE, then surely Hillary's (presumed) win in Puerto Rico, which doesn't even get to vote in the GE, is even less relevant, yes?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

last I checked MI/FL were still part of the UNITED states or is the new Obama-map of the DIVIDED states not include MI/FL?

by nikkid 2008-05-28 08:40PM | 0 recs
Apply logic to your own statement

What do you think she's claiming about Puerto Rico?

You don't need to remember anything you said off-hand, why don't you pay attention to what "your" candidate is saying.

by Regenman 2008-05-28 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

what have got against puerto rico(ans)?? it's a primary at least, and a hell of a lot of voters are going to be involved! they can vote for either candidate -

by swissffun 2008-05-28 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

But you would agree that generating Democratic support and running a ground game in all 50 states is good, yes?

by not Brit 2008-05-28 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Of course I would agree.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

This is one of the primary reasons I have supported Obama from the beginning. Not because I think Hillary is a bad politician or would be a bad president, but because Obama has demonstrated that he can work a 50 state strategy.

Winning in November just isn't enough. We all remember what happened in 1994. Imagine what this year will look like when red states are inundated with Democratic voters. The state may stay "red", but we'll see Democratic mayors in Alabama, Democratic Representatives in Idaho, and Democratic Senators in Kentucky.

That is what I mean by learning the rules, planning for the rules, working within the rules, using the rules to our advantage, and winning by the rules against the odds.

For the record, I still stand by my long held assertion that we could run a can of soup against the Republicans this year and still win. It's just nice that we have two candidates who are relentlessly pursuing every single Democratic voter in the country.

by not Brit 2008-05-28 03:19PM | 0 recs
recc'ed for the victorious can of soup

by Wee Mama 2008-05-28 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

50? or 57? or 48 without MI/FL?

by swissffun 2008-05-28 04:02PM | 0 recs
the Dems should nominate someone

who has proven him/herself as an effective whiner when s/he loses.

That's what the party needs!

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-28 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: the Dems should nominate someone

Okay, the comments have officially gotten too childish for me to continue reading.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: the Dems should nominate someone

I fully expect that Hillary will continue campaigning after McCain beats her on November 4th. After all, nothing is official until the electoral college meets in December. Electors don't have to vote according to the way their state voted, after all, and surely they must see that she'd be a better president than McCain. Just give her time - she can convince them!

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

It is absolutely ludicrous. The Caucus system is a joke, and the joke will be on Obama. There is no Caucus elections in the GE.

by steve468 2008-05-28 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

You can't caucus your way to a win in November.

by TxKat 2008-05-28 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

You should send that to Obama. Since he's the nominee of your party, I'm sure he'd be glad to hear it.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 03:19PM | 0 recs
Guess that why you lost all the caucus states?

Wow, what an incredibly smart and experience move to avoid the caucus states in February.  I mean if you lose the caucus states in February, it means you can win in November.

Try again....

by Regenman 2008-05-28 03:22PM | 0 recs
Yes you can

In order to be on the ballot in November and have a chance to win, you have to be able to caucus in the spring. Hillary couldn't caucus. Therefore, she cannot win in November.

by elrod 2008-05-28 04:14PM | 0 recs
Confirms that Obama does better in

races that matter.

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-28 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

It hardly matters, provided we can persuade all these states to hold low-turnout caucuses in November.  Hopefully that's doable.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Lets make sure to do that in Puerto Rico which has more delegates than the State of Maryland.

Oh yea, they voted for Obama by 20% in Clinton Country.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I can't even follow this comment.

by Steve M 2008-05-28 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

When did Maryland become Clinton Country?

by LakersFan 2008-05-28 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

We are an establisment state just like PA and DE.

We had a the COCHAIR of the DLC as our govenor and Mikulski and some other dems backing her.

So Clinton said tata to MD especially since Feb was her original goal post, she didn't put in one office.

Obama put in ten.

Why would Maryland not be Clinton country, considering Feb 12 she was still the establishment favorite.

And again WHY WHY WHY does Puerto Rico have more pull than Maryland! or any other STATE.

I have been eyeing hard starting a grass roots campaign to make my state, host of 50% of Washington DC count in the Primaries and the General.

This was the FIRST time presedential candidates made an effort for our state, and in the end it was ONLY obama since Hillary had zero offices here.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-05-28 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I still don't know how any of that makes Maryland "Clinton Country".

And what's your problem with Puerto Rico? If they have more people, they get more votes. It's called "democracy".

by LakersFan 2008-05-28 03:43PM | 0 recs
I think
That what bothers some of us is that Puerto Rico doesn't vote for the president in the general election.
It doesn't bother me that they get to vote and send delegates to the convention. But if they can't vote in November, why should they get more delegates than does Maryland, which does vote in November?
by Mumphrey 2008-05-28 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I think

Because someday Puerto Ricans will vote in the GE and we want them to all vote Democratic. In case you haven't noticed, the rules for the primaries have no connection to the GE rules.

by LakersFan 2008-05-28 04:56PM | 0 recs
If only

someone, probably drunk New Years eve, hadn't suddenly decided out of nowhere to create these 'caucus' things.

What's amazing is that, in such a short timeframe, the Obama campaign was so able to tailor their campaign strategy to utilize them.

One thing is clear - next cycle, we shouldn't have any last minute creations no one knew about in advance like these 'caucuses' this year.

by zonk 2008-05-28 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: If only

Rush Limbaugh told me Hamas emailed 'how to caucus' guides to the DNC last year. Just another group in the tank for you-know-who.

/RedState.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 02:44PM | 0 recs
Look this has serious ramifications for the future

I don't think this was just a question of Obama's mobilization efforts.  The inference may be that attendance at caucuses skews a bit more to the left than primaries. When the left leads the Democratic party, the Democratic party loses.  

by lombard 2008-05-28 02:50PM | 0 recs
Well...

It's not worth winning as Democrats if our policies become indistinguishable from those of the Republicans.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Look this has serious ramifications for the fu

Can't agree.  The center led many in our party to support the war.  It was a smart move.  Very, very few on the left cautioned against it.  I'll stand with them any time.  Our party has a soul AND a brain.  They work pretty well together.

by niksder 2008-05-28 03:18PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton ran in the system with

caucuses twice and won, so it is not something mysterious to deal with.

by Wee Mama 2008-05-28 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I will agree that caucuses are a terrible idea. If it were up to me, we'd have binding primaries in every single state/territory used to nominate. Having said that, the delegates coming out of the Idaho caucuses are what matters for 2008.

by VAAlex 2008-05-28 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

"If it were up to me, we'd have binding primaries in every single state/territory used to nominate. "

And if a state's party violated those rules you'd make, would you let them seat their delegates?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-28 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Wha...? What does this have to do with Ohio, Texas, Washington, and/or Nebraska results showing the disproportionate gap in perfomance vis-a-vis caucus and primary results for Obama and Clinton? Seems like you're trying to provoke an argument, methinks.

by VAAlex 2008-05-28 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

You argued that you'd set certain common rules if it was in your power -- namely that you'd have the states all decide via primaries their delegates, not via caucuses.

I asked you what you'd do to enforce those rules, in the case they were broken. I think that's a fair decision whenever someone speaks about establishing rules common to all the states: If one state doesn't comply to these rules (e.g. doesn't want to spend the money for a primary, or holds caucuses in too great esteem to abandon them), then what?

Would you seat the delegates of such a state or not?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-28 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Obviously, you're trying to start an argument about FL/MI, which I won't fall into. I'm arguing here about primaries vs. caucuses and that's it, which is also what this diary is about. So if you'd like to discuss MI/FL, there's plenty of other diaries on that same topic.

by VAAlex 2008-05-28 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I have no idea what your position is in MI/FL. If you once told me I don't remember it, and if you don't want to tell me it, that's fine with me: It's not what I asked.

I asked you how you'd enforce the rules you suggest about forcing the states to use PRIMARIES -- aka a relevant question about your own suggestion.

I'm waiting for your answer. How would you force them to follow that guideline? What'd be the consequences of not following it?

If you can't answer me that, then your wish about primaries is not even a suggestion, it's so vague as to be merely wishful thinking.

And if you don't want to answer the question lest you appear self-contradictory, then I'd suggest the simple solution of not holding self-contradictory opinions.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-28 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Like I said previously, the only relevant issue here would be in relation to MI & FL, and some attempt to draw some parallel between whatever I say and what happened to FL/MI. I won't play that game.

How would I 'force' them to use primaries? Simple. Democratic primaries will be recognized for the purpose of nominating the Democratic nominee. It's pretty self-evident, isn't it? I don't understand why I would need to 'enforce' it.

by VAAlex 2008-05-28 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Ok, so you wouldn't recognize delegates that were selected with other means, like caucuses, or automatically like superdelegates.

Okay, that's good to know.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-28 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Superdelegates should play no part in selecting the nominee.

by VAAlex 2008-05-29 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I don't think anyone expected Obama's campaign to game the caucus system as well as they have.

by zenful6219 2008-05-28 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I guess winning fair and square = gaming the system now in Hillaryland.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-28 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

The goddess can only lose by being cheated against, otherwise she wouldn't lose, obviously.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-28 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I think I know what you mean by your comment, but the verb "game" really bothers me.  It's like saying the Celtics "gamed" the system against the Pistons by being better free-throw shooters.  The caucuses are - and always have been - part of the nomination process.  And it isn't like Obama's people somehow made it impossible for Hillary to also organize for caucuses.  They were there for the taking and he took them.  If she really wanted to be President, she should have thought of that last May, not this May.

by the mollusk 2008-05-28 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

He didn't.  The various Red State party establishments and honchos that wanted him in because he's more to their liking (i.e. more conservative and willing to give them more power), did.  
by killjoy 2008-05-28 02:59PM | 0 recs
extraordinary claims

require extraordinary evidence, not anonymous complaints by partisans on the Internet.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-28 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: extraordinary claims

I'd love to give a '3' for that comment  ;-)
by killjoy 2008-05-28 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Gamed the system?  Bitter much?

by niksder 2008-05-28 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

This confirms so many sources about caucus vs. primary voters this year. I fear a tragedy in the making for the democratic party which insists on saying these caucus votes are valid.

by linfar 2008-05-28 02:48PM | 0 recs
Were you complaining about them
in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004?
by JJE 2008-05-28 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

LOL!  Valid?  Soorrreeee...

by fogiv 2008-05-28 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Caucus voters are sexist?  Wait, I'm confused...

by guazatragicness 2008-05-28 03:44PM | 0 recs
Get some help,

Or just go away.

by Mumphrey 2008-05-28 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Your concern is noted.

by X Stryker 2008-05-29 06:52AM | 0 recs
NCAA championship confirms tournament trend
If you allow teams to shoot 3-pointers, teams that take advantage of 3-pointers win. True facts.
by JJE 2008-05-28 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: NCAA championship confirms tournament trend

and I'm completely aghast.  why let those short weaklings shoot from outside.  i want to see games with 10 Shaqille O'Neill's pushing each other around in the paint.

by the mollusk 2008-05-28 02:55PM | 0 recs
Fewer potatoes
More lynchings.
by JJE 2008-05-28 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish someone could please

A good starting point for that discussion would be that it's obviously something other than racism, no?

by Steve M 2008-05-28 03:01PM | 0 recs
Not necessarily

It could be that the fact that the Aryan nation can find a place to live in a sparsely populated Western state tells little about how racism amongst people in the rest of the state.

In this diary Elrod explains the culture of certain Applachian regions better than I can.  While Obama's problem is not just due to race there, it's blinkered to pretend that race is not an issue both due to outright racism and also because it contributes to Obama's "outsiderness".

I was being glib and unfair with the lynching comment but I don't think we can pretend that race does not in part account for the geographical disparity in Obama's performance amongst whites with less education.

by JJE 2008-05-28 03:19PM | 0 recs
Appalachia is the opposite of the Rockies

Thanks for bringing my diary up. I was going to go back to the "outsider" think again.

There is a HUGE difference between Appalachian mountain culture and Rocky Mountain culture. In the Rockies people like to believe in a sort of idealized world, whether attainable through religion, private property or government. Reform candidates have always done well in the Mountain West as they appeal to an innately American sense of optimism.

Appalachia is the exact opposite. Voters here are deeply suspicious and pessimistic about change and reform. Change has only meant decline for Appalachia. Outsiders are nothing more than exploiters. Calvinistic religious outlooks - deeply pessimistic about human nature - are still common in Appalachia. Voters here in Appalachia recoil at the thought of transforming our politics or anything else for that matter. The old way is the better way. If you can't trace your ancestors to the 18th century Overmountain Men heroes of the Battle of King's Mountain, or to those who traveled through Cumberland Gap, or to those who descended down the Great Valley, you are an outsider.  Nothing of that exists in the Rockies, where virtually everybody is a relative "newcomer."

Barack Obama personifies the reformer. Thus, he is loved in the West and feared in Appalachia.

by elrod 2008-05-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

Don't underestimate how much Sen. Clinton is hated in the libertarian Mountain states. A couple of reasons spring to mind:

1) She's the poster child for gun control.  Like it or not, the rural West and guns go together like sprinkles and donuts.  I remember reading a newspaper story about a pot bust in a Cheyenne theater about 20 years ago -- 2 or 3 moviegoers were busted for pot, and about 200 out of 300 in the crowd had concealed weapons.

2) The West is AM radio world -- FM is line of sight (more or less).  24 x 7 Rush, Bible bangers, country music, but not much Hillary love. Don't underestimate the influence of radio on those long drives. (Now some truckers and Westerners have satellite radio, but still not widespread.)

Just some guesses.

by Twin Planets 2008-05-28 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

She won big (bigger than her total margin) amongst gun owners in PA.

by BlacknBlue 2008-05-28 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

don't think you want to bring up gun rights issues considering obama's voting history in that area.

by swissffun 2008-05-28 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

It's an uphill battle for Obama against a GOP candidate re guns, but the folks I've talked to in rural N California, Oregon, and Nevada don't see him as a "gun control" candidate. Not like Clinton. (BTW, I know this perception may not be accurate, but that's the vibe I'm picking up.)

And hey, it's a theory, not a poll.

by Twin Planets 2008-05-28 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

buckle up, the GOP is going to make sure every gun owner knows about Obama's voting record on the issue. they've already started.

by swissffun 2008-05-28 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

NNNNOOOO!!!! Not an attack on the gun issue! We've never seen that before!  Hide the women and children!  

Americans are through with gimmick issues.  Life is too shitty, too many soldiers are dying and too many families are struggling to worry about God, guns and gays like we did in 2004.

NOT ... THIS ... TIME!!!

p.s. Since when is Hillary pro-gun?

by SpideyDem 2008-05-28 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

maybe her supporters are just smarter to not be BRINGING that up. let the gop do it. why YOU brought this up regarding Obama is just bizarre.

by swissffun 2008-05-29 02:12AM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

How is it bizarre to respond to a comment about the gun issue with a comment about the gun issue?  You're illogic is making me uncomfortable.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-29 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

Rant on.  I was just giving my personal impressions of people I've spoken to in the rural West. (N Cal, North & Central Nevada, and Eastern Oregon).  FWIW, I think Obama and Clinton are pretty close on gun control issues.  However, Sen Clinton has a very negative image as a "big government, anti-gun liberal" here. Again, this is an issue of perception, not necessarily reality. I'd guess it has something to do with Hillary's long-term presence on the national political stage.

It may be a bizarre observation, but your attempt to turn this into a Obama vs. Clinton tussle is misplaced.

by Twin Planets 2008-05-29 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how much she's hated

That's a bit of a puzzle to me too. On my last visit to Harney Co., Oregon (as rural as it gets -- far more sheep and rattlesnakes than people), I visited an old friend.  Over dinner, this inveterate duck hunter and Harley rider started raving about this "Obama guy".  You could have knocked me over with a noodle.

I am not sure why the appeal, but it's real. I've heard others in some out of the way places who perceive Obama as an outsider who wants to do things differently.  That's a potent message in a part of the country that still harbors big dreams.

by Twin Planets 2008-05-28 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I would hope so

Although most of the Mountain West states are very red, DEMOCRATS out there are often progressive, grassroots folks who are more than willing to embrace a non-establishment campaign and non-traditional candidate like Obama.  Not so much in Appalachia and the Deep South, where many Democrats are VERY traditional values voters who are very reluctant to go with something new like Obama.  There is no doubt some racism, but I think it's mostly cultural.  You're dealing with completely different animals in the two regions.

by SpideyDem 2008-05-28 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish someone could please

As to why Idaho's (Aryan nation)Democrats vote more for Obama compared to traditionally Democratic states in the South and other Appalachia region Democrats (Ku Klux Clan or whatever) this must be because the Democrats in those states (i.e. Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas) tend to be more liberal and upper income compared to the Kentucky/West Virginia..the Appalachias. The sad thing is that NO DEMOCRAT will win UTAH,NEBRASKA,KANSAS,IDAHO,the DAKOTAS, MONTANA, even NEVADA...dream on. DEMOCRATS in the Appalachian region tend to be more traditional in their political party partisanship especially in this upcoming elections...for better or worse. Obama could have made inroads if he used the common touch early on. Now, it's too late. Prepare to lose the Appalachian region which only CLINTON can win. Dream on about Virgina and North Carolina...Obama will never win those. There are more White Republicans(ku Klux Clan) than Black Democrats in the General Elections.

by cxfornier 2008-05-28 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I wish someone could please

in many of thos Obma red states, the democrat pool is disproportionately liberal (Moscow, ID voted for Obama; the AN bastion is republican and didn't figure into the primary). But you knew that didn't you?.... what a straw man argument.

by swissffun 2008-05-28 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I also want to point out

yes, but then she wouldn't have to be so unreasonable in how she wants to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.  you see, it's all part of a rich tapestry.

by the mollusk 2008-05-28 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Idaho non-binding primary confirms that non-binding primaries don't mean anything!

by tastycakes 2008-05-28 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

1.  Even if you assume a large Obama advantage in caucuses, he'd still win the caucus states he won if they held primaries.  See Washington, idaho, and Nebraska and the primary results of nearby states such as Oregon and Utah suggest this.  Agreed?

2.  If the caucus states had held primaries, voter turnout would have been up many fold over the caucus turnout and much higher than the beauty contest primaries.  Agreed?

3.  Obama would still have held a pledged delegate lead even if there were no caucuses if you give him only slight delegate edges in the caucus states (and we're agreed he would have won them anyway).  Agreed?

3.  If assume turnout consistent with other states this season, Obama would have a larger lead in the popular vote than he does now if caucus states had held primaries.  Agreed?

Thus, Clinton would still be behind in pledged delegates and even further behind in popular votes.  Clinton would have an even lesser moral claim on the nomination if there had been primaries instead of caucuses.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-28 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

"But whereas Obama won the caucus by 72 points (79 to 17), . . . ."

79 - 17 = 62

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-28 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

If nothing else, it shows how effective Obama's GOTV  operation is.  I can't wait to have it going full tilt in November.

by mefeck 2008-05-28 03:09PM | 0 recs
And?

Yup.  You're right.  Obama won most of the caucuses.  And thus Obama got more pledged delegates from the caucus states.  And thus he has a lead in pledged delegates.

So what's your point?

Pledged delegates are the method by which nominees are chosen.  It doesn't matter whether those delegates were chosen by caucus or by primary votes.  That's the way it is.

If you think that caucuses are "undemocratic," then work to change the system.  But it was the system for past primaries, it is the system for this primary, and it will be the system for future primaries unless it is changed.

I suppose that your point is that you think that the popular vote metric is more "democratic."  Fine.  I would probably agree with you on that point.  But it wasn't the system used in many states for this election, so it Just.  Isn't.  Relevant.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to beating my head against a brick wall.

by Vivianne 2008-05-28 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: And?

The point is that the DNC hid this so-called "caucus" system from the Clinton campaign.  They were fighting at a disadvantage have no way, no possible way to know that there would be states holding caucuses that would actually count.  Also, the DNC apparently sets no limits on the hypotheticals, causing the Clinton campaign additional confusion in rebutting the so-called caucuses.

So the Clinton campaign has had to use all of the hypotheticals, thereby undercutting their own case.

So it's the popular vote.
The popular vote without the caucus.
The popular vote counting the states HRC agreed not to count.
The electoral map.
The important states.
The big states.
The swing states.
May 26th Poll positions.

Unfair, unfair, unfair.

by niksder 2008-05-28 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

Lots of people in WA State are aware that the Democratic primary here is purely a beauty contest, and thus do not vote in it.

Attempting to use the results of this primary to form an argument is beyond stupid.

by sorrodos 2008-05-28 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: He won the Idaho primary

What's so different about Idaho that doesn't apply to West Virginia?  

by niksder 2008-05-28 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

I don't get the point.  How is winning a non-binding Primary proof of anything negative to his campaign?  He wins the binding caucuses and the non-binding Primaries.  

by Piuma 2008-05-28 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend

It seems that the "trend" shows that Barack Obama has superior organization and campaign strategy, which (in part) has given him his lead in delegates.  It may also show that Clinton does relatively well when there is no campaigning, since everyone is familiar with her.  

Either way, you can't really blame the caucus system for the Clinton campaign choosing not to compete.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-28 04:26PM | 0 recs
Kinda like Florida, maybe?

Maybe the real relevance is that when Obama campaigns, he does REALLY well. When he puts his GOTV operation in place he does REALLY well.

Imagine if he campaigned and had his GOTV operation going in Florida? He would have done a lot better.

by elrod 2008-05-28 04:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads