Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
http://www.talkleft.com/media/caucusjune2rev.pdf
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/2/12307/61275
Updated Caucus-Primary Statistics : Through June 1
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:00 PM EST
Tags: caucuses, primaries, 2008 (all tags)
Hot off the press and only available at TalkLeft: Peniel Cronin's revised Caucus v. Primary report with numbers updated to today, showing how the caucuses, compared to primaries, have unfairly disenfranchised voters. (Background and original report here.)
I want this report to get as much exposure as possible. Thus, this post will stay at the top of TalkLeft for several hours. New posts will be below it.
Some Findings:
35.6 million people have voted
The 37 primary states account for 97% of the vote.
The 13 caucus states account for 3% of the vote.
Bottom line: Clinton’s lead is from 34.5 million voters (97%) in Primaries. Obama’s lead is from 1.1 million voters (3%) in caucuses. [More...]
Out of the 50 state elections so far, Clinton has won 20 primaries and Obama has won 17. In comparison, Obama has dominated the Caucus contests by winning 12 of 13, plus the Texas caucus. 42% of his wins are caucus states.
...After 50 election contests to date, Obama leads Clinton by 113 pledged delegates. 97.4% of the difference – 110 delegates – is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests.
...In the 37 primaries, Hillary Clinton is up 500,000 votes (counting Florida and Michigan and giving Barack Obama 75% of the votes of Michigan's uncommitted delegates.) This give her a 67 delegate lead in the primaries. In the 13 caucus states, Obama is up 300,000 votes which has resulted in a 205 delegate lead.
The electoral map:
21 of Obama’s 29 states won are either caucus states or Red states – including 80% of the deepest Red that have not voted Democratic since 1964 to 1976. With a win in SD and MT, he will finish with 230 Electoral Votes –121 of those from Red states.
...Notably, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will start the race for the Presidency with 109 Electoral Votes from blue or purple states. That’s 40% of what he’ll need to win in November.
...In contrast, only one of Clinton’s 20 states won plus Puerto Rico is a caucus and only 26% of her total Electoral Votes are from Red states.
...Further, 227 of Clinton’s 308 EV are from blue and purple states meaning that she would start the Presidential race having won states that account for 84% of the EV needed to win the Whitehouse.
There's much, much more. Read it, and if you know a superdelegate or how to contact one, send it along.(But don't put e-mail addresses in comments here.)
Has anyone considered what could happen if there was another staged terrorism event in America during the general election?
If that happened and Obama was the nominee, the Democrats would have a candidate who (a) is a black man (Black Panthers, Black Muslims, Weather Underground etc.) (b) has the second name Hussein (Saddam Hussein) (c)has a Muslim father(d)spent part of his childhood being educated in Indonesia, home of South East Asian terrorism and (e) has had longstanding links to a church where the pastor gives hate speeches against whites and Jews. I'm sure Barack Obama doesn't see himself as a patsy but in the right circumstances he could be a gift to the Republicans and that certainly explains the dream run he's had with the right wing media hacks and why those same hacks attack Hillary Clinton at every opportunity. There are no depths to which the Republicans will not sink to prevent the Democrats getting control of the White House. One person said that 11% of Americans think 'Bush did 9/11'. In fact one poll showed that 73% of Americans think that and it's easy, looking at the facts, to see why they think that. Yes, it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory but a recent discussion in Australia on the ABC (much the same as the BBC) website had comment running at around 80% not believing the official story. Bear in mind that Joe Lieberman was a Republican plant at the highest levels of the Democratic party. There must have been a time when saying such a thing would have met with total disbelief in Democrat circles. He was almost Vice-President. I think it's highly unlikely that he's the only plant.
KoTex is a troll. Feed at your own risk.
And why is it important that Clinton has fared well in states after a certain date? It really is too bad that 2/3 of the states had their contests decided before that date, and that Obama had such a huge delegate lead by March 1.
Perhaps Kate TeX thinks baseball games should be decided by who scores more runs in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings?
(Why would any editor consider such intellectual gibberish worth of note? Do weak arguments require equal representation??)
Just to be clear, since you're accusing me of making things up and getting things wrong, the previous story I wrote on Puerto Rico didn't say Clinton would lose the primary to Obama. It said, first of all, that turnout would be low, and also noted that the most recent poll had her winning by only 13 points, so "she might not" win by the blowout margins she's been winning other primaries by.
As it turned out, far fewer voters showed up than anyone expected; even the lowest projections for turnout I heard from any analyst or campaign official was about 120,000 higher than the actual turnout. The pollsters who did that survey (a neutral Democratic polling firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, working for Univision and El Vocero) projected 600,000 to 700,000 voters. Turnout was actually 384,000. As turnout projections dropped, though, experts told me Clinton's expected margin would go up, because her dedicated voters were far more motivated than Obama's voters or "leaners" who didn't support either one of them that passionately.
So if the other piece got something wrong, it was actually in expecting too many people to vote (even though I predicted turnout would be low amidst general voter apathy). Of course we'll never know what the margin would have been in an election with more voters, but I suspect it would have been much closer.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
