Tarrant wrote:
I love this line. Turn it around and say "Soandso won the election, and all the caucuses, as long as you don't count primary elections."
I know a lot of people have disagreements about whether or not caucuses are worthwhile compared to standard primary elections for the purposes of electing delegates to the conventions. But those disagreements aren't relevant at the moment. The fact is in 2008 both the Democratic and Republican parties had some states that held caucuses, and some states that held primary elections. A caucus tends to bring out the diehards, those who are wholly committed to a candidate. Get-out-the-voter efforts for caucuses are of great importance, as the "number of caucus-goers per delegate" is significantly lower than in a primary. And yes, every candidate tries all they can to get people to go, generally by offering transportation. I haven't heard anything about "falsifying documents", but PUMAs have been claiming that for years without any evidence. The reality is if Hillary Clinton had something definitive to use against President Obama in the primary, including "election fraud", she probably would have used it. That's politics.
So it's true that (although it's a bit wrong in that President Obama did not participate in Michigan, while Hillary Clinton did, against her pledge to not do so) Hillary Clinton did get marginally more primary election votes than President Obama. I don't recall the numbers and I'm sure someone can find them on Wikipedia. But President Obama's strategy included a focus on the caucus states, and getting his supporters to attend the caucuses, and he won a large number of delegates from caucus states, with a corresponding lower number of people actually participating. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff openly stated they were focusing on the large primary election states with large numbers of delegates. President Obama's strategy won - the delegates he was awarded from caucuses overcame Hillary Clinton's advantage in the primary election states.
Look, our presidential primaries are still done very strangely, with each state doing their elections differently (primaries or caucuses) and apportioning delegates differently (winner take all, by district, proportionally, etc). But President Obama did gain more delegates, and was the nominee.
Thanks! That was an excellent explanation. I know from personal experience how "unfair" primaries feel when you are directly involved and lose. I was in NH working for Bill Bradley for the Feb 2000 Dem primary. We all worked every day, 8 am to 9 pm, living on peanut butter and jelly and Mothers' cookies and walking precincts in -2 degree weather. Your soul becomes dependent on the campaign, it is everything. So it seems natural that on so many levels, I felt wronged by how things went. First, I resented that the Clintons acted entitled to pick Bill's successor and were exerting all the pressure they could and that felt undemocratic (with a little d) and as ruthless as it was; that really ticked me off. Out of the blue, NARAL had a huge press conference to announce its support for Gore -- I was incredulous ... Gore had not just been anti-Choice through the 1980s, his rhetoric about it had been among the most offensive! I felt completely betrayed. The Clintons were doing anything the could. Then, I pretty much knew in my bones that the Clintons had strong-armed Teddy Kennedy with some pretty nasty dirt they had to have on him, into doing something he had never done since 1960 which was to endorse in the primary. A Kennedy endorsement was important anywhere but in New England it was ever more so. There were ads running wall-to-wall with Teddy explaining how only Gore could make universal health care happen, which was nuts since Al was then talking about woosy "incremental" health care reform contrary to Bill Bradley's long-standing battle along-side Teddy for a single-payer plan. (I knew I had been right, felt totally vindicated, when in 2008, the whole Kennedy clan not only didn't endorse Hillary but went whole-hog every last one of them including Caroline, for Obama.) Last, I hated that Bradley really hadn't lost to Gore, he'd lost to Independents choosing to opt into the GOP rather than the Dem primary, because McCain the Maverick had become so red hot popular, almost more a fad than a candidate! The total number of voters in the Dem primary was way below what had been expected. Independents only chose in which primary to vote in when they show up at the poll. Most of the McCain voters who went over to him in the final weeks had been Bradley not Bush votes. So Gore won by 3%, but the press acted like it was totally over -- and never really talked about the shift of independents' choice of party participation on election day.
I felt so bitter, so completely bitter and so personally rejected! What was wrong with my party? Especially because I thought that Bradley was such a class act, he would leave that dolt Bush in the dust and he had none of the baggage that Gore had. I still believe that, btw. Anyhow, I guess I got over most of it over time, but I know others who worked for Bradley and as a result of what went on in NH never participated in political activism ever again.
I am not in anyway intending to defend these women as their suggestions are ridiculous that only primaries matters, caucuses don't really count. Moreover, the entire time I was in NH, there were wild rumors about behind the scenes double dealing and underhanded politics; anyone with half a brain dismissed most of them as ridiculous. These women seem to fail the half-brain test! But I understand that our primary election process is a mess and produces the best politician, if not the best candidate for the general election. But really, these women need to move on; they have it all wrong, IMO as one who has been there!
Login
Register
FAQ
) except for that small anomaly down in Georgia, which her flying monkeys willing donated part of their monthly social security checks to cover anyway. She truly is a conspiracy nut who believes the President is a criminal and that she will eventually expose this vast conspiracy thus cementing her place in history. Also, she very much enjoys seeing her name in the news.
x3 
showing the sitting US President and Presidential candidate Barack Obama using forged identification papers. Most attorneys around the country and in MS are scared to touch this issue and particularly do it pro bono.
