The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« White House Says Emails During Iraq War Lead-up are Lost, Likely Un-recoverable | Main | Special Counsel Stopped Investigation of Siegelman Prosecution »

May 09, 2008



As I've said many times, the candidates were asked to remove their names by the DNC. Some complied with the request and others did not. I'm not sure what you mean by "required".

Barrett's article was and still is ridiculous. Michigan Democrats did this to themselves, and he twists himself into knots trying to pretend otherwise. They controlled one house and the governorship, and they pushed the bill through. The argument that this is at the GOP's feet is plainly absurd.

Michigan's Democratic leadership can certify whoever they want for the undecideds - that's how undecideds work. If the vote had happened on or after super Tuesday, it's hard to imagine Obama doing worse than 40%. The last poll done there (Rasmussen, March 6) had them in a 41%-41% dead heat with 18% undecided, and moreover, Obama consistently outperforms Clinton versus McCain in general election polls in Michigan. Debate about the assignment of undecideds is a total red herring.

Bottom line, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Michigan Democratic leadership, and I consider the deeply flawed vote that happened to not be reflective of the electorate at all. I'm certain some delegation will be seated, but to me, a 50/50 split, with no superdelegates, is the most fair outcome.

With Florida I have more sympathy because the Democrats didn't have control. Nevertheless they put up only the weakest token resistance to the move. That said, the vote there did at least have Obama on the ballot, and was at least somewhat reflective of the results that a real, contested primary would have had. I'd be fine with seating a 50% pledged delegation reflective of the vote, with no superdelegates.

By my calculation, 50% delegations from both, with no superdelegates and with a 50/50 split Michigan delegation, would result in a 84.5-65.5 allocation, for a +19 net to Hillary, and a new magic number of 2100.

This seems fair to me, and hopefully it's enough of a penalty to discourage any state from pulling this crap again in 2012.


I for one will accept nothing less than 73 from MI for Clinton.

She won them, when Obama took his name off of the MI ballot. He didn't have to do that - but he went ahead and removed his name from running in MI because his polls showed that he would lose big to Hillary. It was a game move that seems to have worked out very well for him, we see.

Obama is a loser and a cheater and will not get the votes of fair minded people, if the dems give this nomination to him un-fairly.

I don't think I would even vote for a Obama/Clinton ticket - that would just irritate me all the more, proving Obama doesn't deserve to win this nomination.


Seriously, Danny, with all due respect, I have to ask: What Bizarro parallel universe are you posting from?

Loser? They've both won some & lost some. Cheater? The Michigan Democratic Party leadership broke the party's rules. And while Obama abided by the party's request, Clinton did not.

Seems to me "fair minded" people are taking all of that into account. Why aren't you?


I'd add that MI and FL knew in advance that the best-case scenario was that they lose half their delegates, so seating a full delegation is clearly and obviously a non-starter.

Also, let's not forget that it was the national Democratic leadership, including Clinton insiders like Ickes and McAuliffe, who made the call on Michigan and Florida. Obama had no influence on the decision. I wish the Obama campaign had pushed harder for a re-vote in Michigan, but that should in no way be construed to mean that it's Obama's fault that there was no re-vote.

D. Cupples


What I mean is that DNC rules did not require candidates to take their names off MI's ballot. Do you know who asked candidates to remove names? When? Do you have a link?

Do you know if DNC asked them to remove names from FL's ballots? If not, why not?

RE Florida, Barrett's article is NOT ridiculous at all. I'm actually familiar enough with our state lege to know that he was pretty dead on.

As I admitted in my post, I know very little about MI's politics, so I CANNOT attest to the accuracy of what Barrett said.

Specifically, how do you think Barrett went wrong re: his MI explanation?

And do you really think that either state deserved to have 100% of delegates stripped, when the rules expressly called for only 50% stripping?

I agree with you: MI's vote does NOT reflect the electorate.

I'm not sure that 50/50 is fair, because Obama made a true contest impossible by choosing to not keep his name on the ballot. At that point, he must have known that he was one of the top-two or top-three candidates.

I can't help but wonder if ultimately throwing MI out of the running was exactly what Obama's strategists had in mind when they made this choice.

Why should Obama come in now and get 50% of the vote?

YOU ARE FLAT WRONG about Florida's dems. Crist and the Republicans really did tie the paper trail provisions to the bill -- specifically so that they could get Dems on record as voting for the primary-changing provisions.

Jeb Bush and the Rs NEVER wanted a paper trail. And if they had, they didn't need Ds' support. The only way Dems could get paper trails in the foreseeable future was to vote yes on that bill. Period.

The Rs did it to cause trouble between FL and the DNC. Period. That's how our state Rs have played the game for going on 10 years.

Remember, our Republican lege will start doing redistricting next year. They managed to get hyper-popular Karen Thurman voted out of Congress simply by re-drawing her district in a screwy way.

That's how they play, which is why FL Dems will likely not get enough control to pass a paper trail bill over the next 10 years.

We NEEd a paper trail, and this was the only chance Dems had. Period.

Another question: do you think it was reasonable for the DNC committee to increase the sanctions and without even conducting an investigation? Without even listening to Karen Thurman?

Why do you want to remove MI's and FL's super-delegates?

In the future, I don't think the DNC or RNC should be able to screw around with states' election calendars, because there's a total gap in accountability (i.e., party's are not governmental entities, and states don't have to follow anything they say -- as FL proves).

And what's wrong with my suggestion that we just give Obama all the uncommitteds in MI?

Again, HE decided (and I suspect it was strategic) to take his name off the ballot, though Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Hillary decided not to.

Don't you think something a little funny was going on with the DNC?


Wait, so do you have a paper trail law or not in Florida? I'm a bit confused by your verb tenses. I think yes, but please confirm.

You may well be right that Florida Democrats had their arms twisted. I don't deny that. But their statements on the subject at the time the bill passed were largely enthusiastic. They basically were thumbing their nose at DNC rules and expecting the minimum penalty for it.

50% was the MINIMUM penalty by DNC rules. In previous disputes the DNC, headed by McAuliffe, had *explicitly* threatened 100% loss of delegates for any state who jumped ahead of Super Tuesday without permission. Michigan and Florida Democrats knew full well the risk, and decided to go along anyway. They called the DNC's bluff, only the DNC wasn't bluffing.

I supported 100% stripping of delegates because I believe the DNC needs to get a handle on the primary process so they can implement something better for 2012. If MI/FL get off with a slap on the wrist, we end up with primaries in October 2011. If they are dealt with harshly, then something like the American plan ( can get implemented next time around.

I see NOTHING "funny" about the DNC wanting to reform the current, horribly flawed primary schedule. I think it is absolutely what they need to do, and I am behind them.

I am OK with a less punitive approach (i.e. a 50% cut) at this stage, simply because this whole affair has been sufficiently ugly that I think the DNC has more or less made its point. I don't think we will see any states anxious to defy the DNC in 2012.

The superdelegates should not be seated because there's no reason TO seat them. The goal here, in my mind, is to maintain a strongly punitive outcome that will discourage future states from violating party rules, while at the same time not blatantly disenfranchising a large number of voters. There's no issue of enfranchisement when it comes to superdelegates.


I don't have a link RE: the DNC request; I heard it on NPR. I've seen it referenced by other people in blog posts and comments, but again, no references. I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it, though. (I mean that sincerely and not as snark.)

"Specifically, how do you think Barrett went wrong re: his MI explanation?"

Well, his argument is prima facie absurd. Every factual statement he makes appears to be accurate, but his conclusions plainly and obviously do not follow from them.

Michigan Democrats control 58 of 75 Michigan house seats. The house passed the bill.

Michigan's Democratic governor chose not to veto the bill. In fact, she supported it enthusiastically.

Change either of these things, and the bill does not pass.

Ergo, the Michigan Democrats did this to themselves.

Obama doesn't deserve 50% of the vote, per se, but Clinton doesn't deserve anything either. They never held a real primary. Any delegation from Michigan, any delegation at all in any breakdown of apportionment, is inherently artificial.

D. Cupples


You said:

"I'd add that MI and FL knew in advance that the best-case scenario was that they lose half their delegates, so seating a full delegation is clearly and obviously a non-starter."

AGAIN, Florida DEMS had NO CONTROL on this one.

I'm still not clear on MI.

D. Cupples


I can't stress enough your ERRORS re: FLA.

Dems have wanted a law requiring paper trails for voting machines since 2002 (the election that Jeb Bush won, though many machine-related probs happened during that election).

Our largest counties have paperless, touchscreen voting. They also gave us trouble in 2004: frankly, there's no way to know if Kerry legitimately lost the election here.

The R-legislature REFUSED to support paper trails for 5 years or so. Given their overwhelming majority (the House has been about 77-43, and the senate is about 24 to 16), the Rs don't need to deal with Dems on ANY issue: they haven't needed to since at least 2001.

Upshot: Republicans forced a choice on Florida Dems: we'll give you paper trails but ONLY if you simultaneously vote for that provision that moves the primary date.

I'm not kidding when I say that our state Rs are mean.

So, now we have a paper trail. We also had a pre-Feb 5 primary and Dem voters' votes may not count.

Florida Dems did not "thumb their noses" at the DNC. They had to vote for the paper trail: they campaigned on it, and frankly, our state needs some accountability.

D. Cupples


Part II. Florida Dems were enthusiastic about the paper trail, not the primary moving. It was all in the same bill.

I DON'T doubt that you heard about the request to remove names from MI's ballot on NPR or in blogs.

Given how much unsourced stuff I've seen in the media and blogs over the last 4 months, I'd have to see a letter or press release to accept that the DNC asked them to take their names off MI's ballot.

Even assuming that the DNC really did make the request, I've NEVER heard that the DNC asked them to remove names from FL's ballot.

If the DNC didn't ask re: FL, why do you suppose that is?

And if the DNC had a no-campaigning rule for MI and FL, why would it even bother asking candidates to remove their names from ballots?

None of it makes sense to me -- unless someone in the DNC had wanted to ultimately make it impossible to count MI's votes.

What also doesn't make sense is that the DNC didn't even mildly sanction NH, IA or SC for moving their primary dates to before the window date in the rules.

I know, they were supposed to go before Super Tuesday, but they went beyond the initial window.

Rules are rules, right? Or so the DNC keeps saying.

Whenever I sense hypocrisy or double standards, I wonder what's at the root.

I agree about the artificiality of any MI delegation. As I said, given that MI Dems have DECIDED to go the artificial route, why not reduce the unfairness to voters a tad?

Nearly 600,000 MI voters went to the polls. About 55% of them intentionally voted for Hillary. About 40% voted uncommitted (a category that included Obama, Edwards, and 2 or 3 other candidates).

To me, that means that giving Obama the full 40% of uncommitted's is generous, given that at least some uncommitted's likely supported Edwards or one of the other candidates who'd taken his name off the ballot.

Again, that's IF MI's Dem officials want to go the artificial route -- which they seem to want to do.

I can't stress it enough: Obama could have kept his name on the ballot along with Hillary, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel.

Don't you wonder why Obama decided not to?

You might not see Hillary as upstanding, but Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel certainly are.

Why do you suppose they chose to not grant the DNC's request (assuming there was one)?

D. Cupples


Part III.

Saying that Barrett's argument is "prima facie absurd" followed by saying that his factual statements seem to be accurate just doesn't make sense to me.

As I recall, Barrett said that the House initially passed the bill when it appeared that the DNC was not planning to sanction other states for breaking primary-date rules (SC and NH, I think). I'd have to re-read the article.

Barrett also went on to say that later, MI Dems tried -- in good faith -- to reverse course. So, why shouldn't the DNC have shown some leniency? Stripped 50% or 25% of the delegates?


In regard to the Michigan primary. It has been noted on other blogs that Edwards and Obama colluded in waiting until the latest possible moment to remove their names from the ballot without informing Clinton. By the time she found out, it was too late to remove her name. They knew this would make her look bad and that was their intent.


I believe you about Florida. As I've always said, I have a lot more sympathy towards the FL situation than the MI situation.

Barrett's argument is absurd because he comes to a conclusion (it's the GOP's fault!) that utterly contradicts the factual evidence which he cites. The bill passed a Democratic house and was signed by a Democratic governor - a governor who actually PUSHED for the bill.

The minor jockeying between SC and NH didn't result in anyone leapfrogging their assigned dates. SC actually did move their date back, as well. It was a silly episode, for sure, but I have no difficulty drawing a distinction between that and what happened in Florida and Michigan.

I assume Obama took his name off for two reasons: one, he was asked to, and two, he was told in no uncertain terms that the results would NOT count. There's an element of bait and switch here. It's fairly obvious that a low-information primary benefits the candidate with more name recognition.

You want a more sinister motive for Obama? No problem, I'll play along. Here's how the sinister (well, let's call it "pragmatic") motive breaks down. Both Obama and Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa, but only by campaigning their butts off to beat Hillary's superior brand and name recognition. With campaigning not allowed in Michigan, Obama/Edwards knew they had no chance. The vote wasn't going to count anyway, so why give Clinton the P.R. victory of beating them?

I don't know the above to be the case, but I imagine it's what you're implying/suspecting. I'm sure those ideas entered into Obama's and Edwards's thinking, even if it was only part of the thought process. However, it has the same flaw as my previous explanation - namely, why Michigan and not Florida?

Incidentally, I don't see Clinton as "not upstanding" because she left her name on the ballot. She knew she would win an election with no campaigning, and I can't blame her for wanting the good press. Kucinich and Gravell (and, I guess, Dodd) weren't winning anything anyway, so getting killed by Hillary in one more primary wasn't gonna change anything. We can assume that Richardson and Biden had entertained delusions of competing, so they had the same thinking as Obama and Edwards.

D. Cupples


I hadn't read that. If you come across a link, would you mind sharing it?

D. Cupples

HI ADAM!!!!!!!

I just noticed that we're on line simultaneously.

D. Cupples


If I've really persuaded you about Florida, PLEASE stop repeating the DNC's erroneous sound bites (i.e., that FL DEMS "broke the rules" and deserve what they get).

I'm upset that DNC officials (like Brazile), lazy pundits -- and even Jimmy Carter -- are still misleading the public with such false talking points.

Again, we're the 4th largest state, and we really needed that paper-trail law.

Back in 2002-04, I did some research/writing about malfunctioning paperless, touchscreen voting machines. Google the local election in Medley, Florida, for one small example.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that we don't know for sure whether Kerry legitimately lost FL's in 2004 or whether Jeb Bush legitimately won in 2002. We'll never know, because there was no paper trail to check.

Back when Obama took his name off MI's ballot (when the DNC reportedly asked him to), NO ONE could validly say that MI wouldn't count, because --

1) the DNC had procedures for appeal of the RBL Committee's decision, and

2) there was always the possibility of court challenges.

Being a well-trained lawyer, Obama likely knew of these possibilities -- as did DNC "leaders."

I wasn't thinking that Obama/Edwards had those particular motives that you mentioned, though they do make sense.

I was thinking that Obama knew that he wouldn't beat Hillary (brand name too many other candidates taking votes from him); thus, he wanted to keep his name off the ballot to decrease the chances that MI could win a DNC appeal or otherwise ultimately be counted.

In short, I think Obama (or his strategists) wanted to take MI out of the equation even that far back.

I also suspect that SOME dnc officials were of like mind.

Since witnessing the DNC's handling of FL, I have NO faith in current "leadership." Watching such officials consistently MISLEAD the public about Florida only compounds my lack of faith in those "leaders'" core values.

Another attempt to mislead the public: Dean's proposal to "seat" delegates AFTER the nominee has already been chosen.

That sickened me, because it's the classic "I'll do bad things and fool people into believing that I didn't."

Our party is supposed to be better than that -- yet our "leaders" have joined Bush and Rove in the muck-filled gutter.

What's the point in belonging to a party that plays the same way the GOP does?

That's why I'm considering becoming an NPA IF the DNC doesn't do some major house cleaning.

I can't tell you how many Floridians feel similarly, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it's a big number.

Of course, THAT's what Florida's Rs were hoping for when they insisted on forcing Dems to vote simultaneously for the much-needed paper trails and the moving of the primary date.

ONLY the DNC could have prevented Florida Rs' from getting their way, yet the DNC chose to hand it to Rs on a platter.

Perhaps now you understand that my distaste for the current DNC "leadership" goes far beyond Dean's and Brazile's obvious support of Obama.


D.Cupples-I can't find the exact information I was speaking to right now, I'll go back through my expanding folder of info later and see if I can find the exact comments.

Here is a link that provides the gist of the claim:

D. Cupples


Thanks much!


Read down the responses of that thread. You see that Edwards and Obama had requested that their names be withdrawn by December 1; hardly the 11th hour.

It also provides a whole set of links showing the rhetoric of the Clinton campaign and how they more or less toed the line with Obama until it became clear she would need the delegates.

DC, when I say I believe you about Florida, I mean that I believe the Florida Democrats were essentially strong-armed into supporting the date move and had no real control over the process. That's why I have a lot more sympathy for Florida Dems - they didn't entirely bring this on themselves. But that does not completely absolve the Florida leadership.

I have read and heard enthusiastic quotes from Florida Dems about the move, and open defiance of the DNC rules. Florida Dems also chose of their own accord to not do what Democratic parties in many other states do - hold a caucus so that they have control over the timing and aren't relying on state government.

Incidentally, another post on that thread claims that Florida ballots could not be changed (already printed and distributed by December), which was why Obama and Edwards were on the ballot there.

D. Cupples


Specifically HOW is it that FL's Dem leadership is NOT absolved, given what I've told you about our state lege's makeup and motives?

RE caucuses: you know that they discourage broad participation. I can see why states with small budgets might hold them (better than nothing), but I see NO EXCUSE for big-money states to cut ordinary folks out of the process.

I have 3 college degrees and a schedule that enables me to study issues and attend political functions. Some people would consider me one of the "elites" who would be making decisions in a caucus.

But even I DON'T think that's what the Democratic party is supposed to be about.

And when you're talking about this election, where Obama did far better in caucuses (among politically active people like me who have good schedules), the DNC was basically offering to give Obama the state (or at least help him close the gap).

That certainly was NOT a viable option for Florida.

Why should Florida have settled for that?

D. Cupples


Pt II.

About the DNC's reportedly asking candidates to remove their names from MI's or FL's ballots: why would they do that?

As I mentioned earlier, the DNC had already prohibited campaigning in those states.

As I also mentioned, DNC "leaders" KNEW that some of FL's and MI's delegates might be seated -- between the DNC's own internal appeals procedures AND the possibility of lawsuits.

So, I ask you: WHY would DNC "leaders" want to remove candidates from ballots when at least some of the delegates could have ultimately been seated?

I can't help but wonder if said "leaders" simply wanted to take MI out of the running and maybe Florida.

What better way than to create a mess like we have right now: no one can agree on a fair distribution of the delegates precisely because Obama had taken his name off the ballot (reportedly at the DNC's request).

Incidentally, Florida Dems have no recourse. We can't even vote out the Republicans who did this to us because of the way that they re-drew districts in 2000.

We likely won't be able to vote them out for the 10 years following the next re-districting (2010-2020).

Even if I weren't mad at the DNC, I don't think that ANY political party should be able to call the shots re: states' elections, because the parties have NO legal authority to force state legislatures to do anything -- as Florida Republicans have proven.



You seem to be examining this exclusively through the lens of Obama vs. Clinton. When these disputes were happening in mid-2007, not only was a drawn out Clinton vs. Obama fight not expected to be the case, but strong Clinton supporters were BEHIND this decision. Remember, it was McAuliffe who specifically threatened Michigan with losing 100% of their delegates in 2004 if they moved up, and Ickes was among those who came down for stripping all delegates in 2007.

There seems to be an idea running beneath your posts that the DNC was trying to help Obama and/or hurt Hillary when it made these decisions. That is both untrue and unsupportable.

As I've said before, the caucuses aren't inherently biased toward Obama. Obama did well in the caucus states because:
1) Those states fit his profile of support. Look at the map of states each candidate won. With the exception of New England, which is a scramble, location and demography determined who won. You don't need to know whether it was a caucus or a primary to guess who won.
2) Obama invested a ton of money and time into organizing in the caucus states. Hillary did not. HUGE, HUGE mistake.

Caucuses do produce lower turnout. They are less small-d democratic. But there's no real evidence that they are biased, at least not from this election.

The DNC suggested a caucus for Florida. The Democratic leadership in the state not only turned down the idea, but argued that they deserve to be up front. Again, I'm willing to concede that they had no control over the date move, but they were unapologetic and intransigent in the way they dealt with the DNC after that.

"So, I ask you: WHY would DNC "leaders" want to remove candidates from ballots when at least some of the delegates could have ultimately been seated?"

Well, they requested it because they had asked the candidates not just to not campaign in the states, but to not PARTICIPATE in the primary. But that's just the what, not the why.

The "why" is that they wanted to delegitimize those primaries to the maximum extent possible. They didn't want those states to be able to seat delegations that were reflected by those votes. They were trying to head off the exact debate which we are having now.

The DNC wants to have control over the primary schedule, to prevent rampant leapfrogging and to allow them to create a graduated, back-loaded primary process that would actually serve the national electorate. The only way they can do that is if they can show that state parties that break their rules will not benefit from those decisions.

"Even if I weren't mad at the DNC, I don't think that ANY political party should be able to call the shots re: states' elections, because the parties have NO legal authority to force state legislatures to do anything -- as Florida Republicans have proven."

All that means is that they can't run a primary with state money. There are multiple alternate options - a caucus, or even running a primary out of pocket. Both state parties considered both options, but ultimately opted for playing chicken with the DNC in stead.


Great back and forth Adam and D. -

D. Cupples wins!

Obama loses without MI and FL and a lot of other states.

D. Cupples


You were silent on a major part of the question I asked re: why the DNC wanted candidates' names off the MI and FL Ballots.

I get that they wanted to de-legitimize MI's and FL's primaries. My qualified question was Why -- GIVEN THAT (quoting myself) ""DNC "leaders" KNEW that some of FL's and MI's delegates might be seated -- between the DNC's own internal appeals procedures AND the possibility of lawsuits."

By de-legitimizing MI's and FL's primaries in advance, the DNC would only be thwarting its own procedures and the authority of a court (if a lawsuit had been heard).

That's some pretty hefty maneuvering -- and highly questionable.

From my perspective (and that of FL's Dem leaders), caucuses are UNACCEPTABLE.

You've said it before, and I still disagree: caucuses did favor Obama.

You like demographics: Obama reportedly is favored by academics (except me) and wealthier people. Hillary is favored by more working class people.

Academics and wealthier people tend to have more flexible schedules, which allow them more opportunities to be politically active AND to participate in caucuses.

That said, you still don't think that Obama benefits from caucuses?

And what about Texas? Hillary won the TX primary by about 101,000.

Fewer than 43,000 people voted in the CAUCUS (less than half of Hillary's margin of victory in the PRIMARY).

Obama won the TX CAUCUS by a bit less than 5300 -- and ended up with more TX delegates because of the CAUCUS.

That evidence doesn't suggest to you that caucuses favor Obama -- if only because of the demographic set that participates in caucuses?

As for Florida Dems' posturing AFTER the Rs moved the primary date: I don't care if it was unapologetic. That doesn't change the fact that Florida Rs moved the date and Dems had no control.

As for leapfrogging: maybe that would be a good idea: if all the states clamored to be toward the front, maybe we could reduce the length of the primary to one or two months (instead of 6).

That would be cheaper for candidates AND the media might be less likely to prematurely call winners because the wait time would be so much less.

D. Cupples


And look at Washington: Obama took 68% at the CAUCUS, and 12 days later, he took only 50% at the non-binding primary.

That's a pretty big difference. I get that WA's and TX's primaries were different. But if your theory holds up (that Obama does well ONLY because of demographics), then he should not have performed so differently in WA's and TX's caucuses than in their primaries.

Limited data, I know, but it's all I've got.


"You like demographics: Obama reportedly is favored by academics (except me) and wealthier people. Hillary is favored by more working class people."

Really, Deb. That's a ridiculous oversimplification of the demographics in the campaign.

Yes, Obama does very poorly (relative to Hillary) among white, low income, low education voters in the east. But, firstly, the same pattern does not seem to hold in the west. This is true when one looks at primaries, not just caucuses. General election polls support this as well.

Secondly, as you are obviously well aware, Obama does very well with African Americans. African Americans are on average lower income, working class, and less likely to have the free time on caucus day.

Third, as you are also obviously well aware, Hillary Clinton has done drastically better than Obama among older voters, particularly retirees. Retirees, by definition, don't have jobs keeping them from the caucuses.


The Washington "beauty pageant" vote was meaningless and everyone knew that. There was no GOTV effort by Obama. I'd place drastically more stock in actual polling results in Washington prior to the caucus than I would in that primary result. And Obama was winning those polls pretty handily. He won the actual caucus by even more, which I attribute to his VASTLY larger volunteer structure on the ground. The GOTV operations of Hillary and Obama were not remotely comparable.

There were two factors working in Texas that flipped Clinton's narrow primary win into Obama's narrow caucus win. First, as I've said many times, Obama's campaign worked much harder organizing for the caucuses and getting their supporters out en masse. Secondly, the "Limbaugh effect", which began in March, didn't reach to caucuses. I suspect the insincere Clinton vote has only been worth 1-3 percentage points in each primary since then (maybe more in MS), but that's enough to swing things in this case.


"That said, you still don't think that Obama benefits from caucuses?"

He benefits from them because he organized much more thoroughly for them. I don't dispute that he has an advantage in caucuses, but it is tactical, and not due to the demographics of his supporters.

The comments to this entry are closed.