Letters to the Editor
-
Bryan (however he spells it)
"Actually, I'm an Obama supporter, and I'll readily admit that caucuses involve fewer voters than primaries. You'd have to be some kind of moron to deny that"
Well, you're the first Obama supporter to actually admit it. Seemed to scare lots of others. Thanks.
The next part with regard to which one is better for figuring out who wins a general etc. I don't have any disagreements with save that it isn't relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not making any extrapolations based on the difference to who is or is not a "better"candidate. I'm simply making the point that the caucuses are inherently less accurate as a gauge of opinion. Since you agree that involve fewer voters (by factor of 3-5), you must agree they are inherently less accurate. That's the basis of any sampling--the larger the sample, the greater the representative accuracy.
So how do we know in which directions that inaccuracy skews, to whose benefit? Two ways. One is by demographics. Look at who is more likely to vote in one or the other. And the demographics (including more "inspired" or "passionate" but also including the young, etc) favor Obama. The why doesn't matter. Some of it is that Obama's people are more inspired to actually vote in the caucus (no argument at all from me on that). Some is because a key Hillary group, over 65, is less likely to do 3-7 hours of sitting and standing, especially if it's at night. But again, why isn't important. Just the fact that one candidate's demographics skew toward more likely to vote in a caucus. But that's the worse way to look at it. The best way is to look at the two states that have actually done both, and in both the evidence is indisputable: Obama does significantly worse in the more accurate sampling than he does in the less accurate one. Which means his leads in caucuses are not truly representative (I'm not saying he wouldn't win, just that he would win by as much)
Now again, I don't care about the reasons. I don't care about what it says about the general. I have no argument to make on fair versus unfair, rules or no rules. I'm not saying he didn't win those states or those delegates. I'm simply stating the math here. That because the process is less accurate, it's perfectly legitimate for a superdelegate to consider that and adjust as they see fit. So when they look at Obama winning 2-1 in Washington State in the caucus and getting x delegates more due to that doubling of Hillary, the superdelegate could (and should in my view) take into account that when five times the number of people voted, Obama didn't have 100 percent more votes than Hillary but 3-4 percent more (I think--going off memory here). And so they should not think of it as really a 2-1 victory when they make their decision. And that the same holds true for other caucuses.
If there's a problem with the logic, I'd be happy to listen to a criticism of it. But so far I've gotten lots of ignoring, dodging, responding to points not made, or just sheer bile (none from you obviously). Which seems to point to an inability to make a logical counterargument.
-
Who is just considering delegate count?
Sure Obama has developed a pledged delegate lead so large that the Clintons' best case scenario is that it gets held to 100
Obama has won:
The most states
The most primaries
The most caucuses
The most votes
More of the 17 States that were close in 2004 by a bigger electoral margin. Obama has won those states that combined have 74 electoral vote while Clinton's states are only 49. Even further, the lastest SUSA poll shows those states giving Obama 101 electoral votes in the general and Clinton only 74. Which is a pretty stark reminder that Hillary can't open up states for the Democrats.
He also has:
Put states like Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina into contention. He even puts Nebraska into contention, which isn't far fetched due to Nebraska system of spliting its electoral votes by congressional district.
Put together a much stronger volunteer orgainization, which will be key to getting out the vote.
Broken fund raising records solely through small donations.
Excited young voters with a argument for Democratic principles that could have ramifications not only in politics but also in civic life.
Not tried to make the case that John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain is more qualified to be Commander in chief than his opponent
Not voted to start a war based on false intellegence.
Personally, I have no problem with the superdelegate system as it is this year. Rules are rules. I do, however, strongly disagree with the Clintons' contention that victory or loss in a state nominating contest directly translate into a victory or loss in the general election. Aside from the fact that there is no historical basis for the argument, it doesn't take into account the facts that the general election is open to all voters or all political leaning and that the contest is between a different opponent.
I also disagree with the notion that a primary vote in a "battleground" state should be worth more than a vote in a "non-battleground" state. Five states shouldn't have veto power over the other 45 states. Votes shouldn't be weighted by geographical boundries. 10,000 votes in one states aren't greater than 12,000 votes in two states.
I also disagree with the notion that caucuses shouldn't count. Caucuses are open to as many people as primaries, fewer people just opt to participate. Some are actually more democratic because, unlike primaries, participant can vote on resolutions that have the ability to be voted on up through the state convention, giving participants a greater ability in shaping their party. Plus, state Democratic parties should have the ability to choose the delegate selection system that makes the most sense for their state. Finally, caucusing is easy.
How easy?
Just ask 2007 Hillary "Inevitable" Clinton:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=racTAiemEQU
-
Who is just considering delegate count?
When you argue she should drop out because it is "mathematically impossible" for her to "win", as many, many, many, many postings have done on these forums, you are basing the argument simply on delegate count, since that's the only "mathematically impossible" aspect of this race.
"Votes shouldn't be weighted by geographical boundries"
Then you have a problem with many Democratic caucuses since many weight their delegates/vote based on geographic boundaries (which precincts went heavily democratic, etc)
And
You have problems with every Presidential Election since small states are weighted more than big states
"I do, however, strongly disagree with the Clintons' contention that victory or loss in a state nominating contest directly translate into a victory or loss in the general election. ""
I absolutely agree. But then didn't you just contend Obama opens up new states? What are you basing that on? The primaries/caucuses that you just said are irrelevant to such an extrapolation or the polls that are equally irrelevant?
"I also disagree with the notion that a primary vote in a "battleground" state should be worth more than a vote in a "non-battleground" state."
But then you're back to arguing it should be decided only on delegates aren't you? If you open up the process to a subjective decision (once nobody reaches the magic number) based on who would be the best standard-bearer for the party, why isn't whether they did better or worse in battleground/non-battleground states a factor (making no contention about Obama in either--just in the abstract logical sense)
"I also disagree with the notion that caucuses shouldn't count"
Who says they shouldn't count? They should count "in context".
As analogy. Number One North Carolina plays Division 3 "wherestheballU" in a scheduled destruction so WherestheballU can get some money. At the first timeout with NC up 28-2, the NC bench collapses injuring all but three players. So now they have to forfeit. By "the rules", that's a win for wherestheballU. But ask anybody who the better team is and are they going to say WTBU? Of course not. They place the victory "in context". So any victory (or loss) needs to be placed in context once you're left to make a subjective decision with regard to the nominee, which we are since nobody got the magic number. Just as Hillary's victory in Texas should be placed in the context of the dems aren't taking Texas this election, Obama's win in Utah should be taken in context. As his caucus wins should be placed in the context that they tend to make his lead higher than it would be were more people voting as in a primary. That's a far cry from saying caucuses shouldn't count. Do you honestly think it is logical that a superdelegate, when weighing factors, considers Obama as preferred by twice as many Washington State democrats because that was the caucus difference, even though when five times as many people voted he was preferred by 3-4 percent? How is that logical?
"Caucuses are open to as many people as primaries, fewer people just opt to participate"
Fewer people opt to participate because caucuses are more burdensome. Move all the polling centers to the suburbs. The system is still "open to as many people" as before. But will the exact same number of urban and rural voters would vote? Of course not. Don't have any handicapped accessible booths. Lots of those wheelchair people could get out and pull themselves along by their arms. Process is still "open to as many". But one needn't get that extreme: a single-mother on low-income finds the caucus process a lot more burdensome than a DINK.
"Some are actually more democratic because, unlike primaries, participant can vote on resolutions that have the ability to be voted on up through the state convention, giving participants a greater ability in shaping their party"
You're comparing apples and oranges. We're not saying caucuses are more or less democratic in overall politics. They are inherently less democratic (or if you prefer, less accurately representative) in choosing nominees because they sample a far smaller percentage of the population and by putting more barriers than primaries, they ensure that in some way those barriers will self-select certain groups. And again, that doesn't mean they don't count, it doesn't mean Obama has delegates officially taken away, it means that superdelegates should consider this skewing when they make a decision. It isn't the factor but it should be a factor. Possibly one overshadowed by your own pro-Obama list.
" caucusing is easy.
How easy?
Just ask 2007 Hillary "Inevitable" Clinton:"
Yes, you've caught her being inconsistent on this. Guess what? Public financing is better for Presidential elections and every nominee should pledge to abide by it. How much better? Just ask Obama before he began setting fund-raising records. Now, no, not so much. Now everyone should go lie down due to the shock that between the two of us we've managed to find two politicians that said one thing and then said another. Smelling salts, anyone?