Letters to the Editor
-
Kate, look at the numbers
Are you seriously trying to argue that, of the 1,459,814 people who voted for Clinton in the Texas primary, she only got 18,620 caucus votes because 1,441,194 of her primary voters were prevented from voting due to "physical, financial, or family limitations"?
We're not talking about walking 50 miles across a burning hot desert with a backpack full of rocks strapped to you. We're talking about taking 10 minutes to look up information about when and where you have to caucus, and then spending a couple of hours declaring your support for your candidate in full view of your fellow citizens.
If the Clinton campaign could barely get 1% of their primary voters to do this, what does that say about the depth of their support for their candidate? And when you're talking about going up against a Republican candidate who enjoys tremendous crossover appeal, wishy-washy pseudo-supporters aren't going to get the job done.
-
I Remind The Supers
That the electoral college total of the states Hillary has won is more than Obamas.
-
@ billcap
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.
But as has been stated here and elsewhere, caucuses measure the depth of support for a candidate and the passion of their supporters. Honestly, I have no hard evidence to support whether a caucus or a primary is a better determination of how a candidate will perform in a general election. I suspect that it would be very difficult to measure that without relying heavily on hypothetical and anecdotal evidence. (If anyone has a link to a well-researched and objective article on the matter, I'd love to read it. Preferably something with lots of numbers, not a few cherry-picked facts.)
You can argue that the candidate who gets more voters to come out for a primary election is a better choice for the general election, because the general election is conducted in the same format. Or you can argue that, when you're still in the primary stage, the candidate who's better able to organize and motivate their supporters to jump through the hoops of a caucus stands a better chance in the general, because that means that they've got the more effective ground game going.
I'm absolutely willing to admit that the caucus system might not be the best way to choose a candidate, but if it was so deeply flawed in the first place, I have to question why it's only now coming under such intense attack. Is it really because it's a bad way to choose a candidate, or is it because one candidate is running the table?
Also, since caucuses are conducted under the same rules for every candidate, why is Hillary Clinton performing so poorly in them?
-
@Uncle Fester
But if one candidate wins both the popular vote and the delegate count, then the supers better have a really, really good argument for going against that.
I agree with you 100%. I know the Clinton camp is trying to make those arguments, but as a Clinton supporter I think given that scenario they would have a really hard row to hoe. On the other hand, your final scenario of 1 candidate having the delegate lead and the other having the popular vote seems like a real possibility. Or if something like less than 1% separates them in either category, it still might be fair to consider other factors. Who knows. We'll see. What really troubles me looking to November, however, is the insistence by some that the popular vote counts for nothing and if the super delegates don't just merely rubber-stamp the delegate count, that somehow this would be considering stealing the nomination and would alienate a chunk of democrats.
-
FL and MI were "Fair" according to Sen. Clinton
Quoting CNN.com: At issue is whether Democrats in Michigan and Florida will get to weigh in again in the contest between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. "The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation in Washington.
So, Senators Obama and Edwards (along with most of the other candidates) did an honorable thing removing themselves from a ballot to extend the agreement that they wouldn't participate in the state's primary... Sen. Clinton decided to keep her name there, and NOW she says the results are fair.
Can any of you Clinton supporters explain how the Michigan results are fair?
-
Electoral votes are a dumb primary argument
I can't see why counting the Electoral Votes of states any candidate has won has any value at this point. The only votes being counted in the primaries are votes for CANDIDATES in each party. The assumption is that Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate in the end, and that the Democrats are looking good for the electoral vote count generally speaking because SO MANY MORE Democrats are turning out to make a primary vote than Republicans.
What is more interesting, in terms of the general election, is how the independents are breaking, and how many Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary and for whom? I don't know why the people who poll Republicans coming out of the primaries don't ask them if they would consider voting for a Democrat in the general election as well. I doubt many would. I think the Republicans voting for Hillary are trying to shape the Democratic primary outcome so they can run against the Dem of their choice and not have to deal with Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, more independents are voting for Obama. Independents are more likely to continue to vote for Obama in the general.
Counting electoral college votes now is really silly. There is no way the vast majority of Democrats in every state will not vote for THE Democratic candidate, no matter who it is -- even if it's a Dark Horse who emerges from a Deadlocked convention. The general election is about the platform of each party as well as about the candidates, and Dems are not going to vote for more tax cuts for the rich, 100 years in Iraq, and bomb, bomb Iran.