Obama's second win in Nebraska is a squeaker (map shows differences from caucus)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10334147

Published Wednesday May 14, 2008

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

Officially it didn't mean much, but the Nebraska faceoff between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was a lot closer the second time around.

Obama eked out a victory Tuesday in Nebraska's nonbinding, Democratic presidential primary. With all precincts reporting, Obama won 49 percent of the vote to 47 percent for Clinton.




On the Republican side, the presumed nominee John McCain won easily against Ron Paul, the national GOP race having been decided months ago.

The close Democratic vote Tuesday came three months after Obama overwhelmed Clinton in Nebraska's first-ever Democratic caucuses, garnering 68 percent support.

It's that caucus vote, not the Tuesday primary, that counted in the national presidential battle.

The primary vote was ignored by both campaigns and by the national news media. But it wasn't going unnoticed in the home of Judy Monaghan, the Omaha political activist who was chairwoman of the Clinton campaign in Nebraska.

She took in the Nebraska results as she watched news coverage of Clinton clobbering Obama in the West Virginia primary.

FULL story at link.

[napi21]

1. I don't think you can reasonably make the comparrison.

I understand Barack does much better in caucuses, BUT in this comparrison, we're trying to compare "votes" that were taken THREE MONTHS apart! WAY too many things could have influenced yesterday's vote in NE.

[boston bean]

2. yeah, no shit and what will happen in November. nt

[AllentownJake]

3. Was there a GOTV effort in Nebraska?

Phone banking, Volunteers knocking on doors, TV ads reminding everyone to vote.

[NEDem]

13. No

[my3boyz]

4. Yet he still won! That is because Hillary is a LOSER in every sense of the word! nt

[Rockholm]

14. Well, Isn't that just sweet of you.

[Onlooker]

5. This is why Obama will have as difficult a time of winning as any Democrat

While the caucus system is great for bringing change to the Democratic Party, it doesn't reflect the voters. Primaries are better at reflecting the sentiments of the voters, but the problem with that is that voters usually prefer names they know than the new kid on the block. The caucus system is good for promoting new blood and change, but it doesn't change the fundamental red state/blue state facts involved in winning the General Election. Obama will not have an easy time winning in the fall (and neither would Clinton).

[chascarrillo]

7. Primaries that voters know don't mean anything aren't reflective of the electorate. Be honest, now.

[Onlooker]

8. But, they are better than caucuses

I'm all for the caucus system since it brings change and actually makes it easier for a less well funded candidate to get momentum. But, primaries include a lot more voters, so they are more reflective of the Democratic Party members (not necessarily a good thing). There's no reason to think that a primary, even when it doesn't mean anything, should be skewed one way or another. I'm sure similar percentages of Clinton and Obama supporters are staying home now that the race is just about over.

[chascarrillo]

9. You can't compare non-delegate selecting primaries to actual primaries.

You just don't know that the people that turn out for a "meaningless" primary are indicative of the Democratic voters in the state. There's demographics to consider, there's the possibility that one candidate's supporters want to make a point by advocating a large turnout. There's a wide variety of factors that could impact the result.

For instance, here in Washington, we had a caucus followed a couple of weeks later by a non-delegate selecting primary (on the Dem side). In certain areas, there were local races on the primary ballot that were decided by the primary. In other areas, there were no local races. So, you have one group of folks who, based on their geographic location, had an electoral reason to turn out for the primary, and one group of folks who did not. You'd have to figure that those people who did have downballot races in the primary would be more likely to vote in the "meaningless" primary - even if they knew it didn't matter. Those who only had the presidential preference primary on their ballot would have less of a reason.

It's just not a good metric in states that have caucuses that determine delegates and primaries that don't. You can't equate them.

This is, of course, irrelevant to whether caucuses are better or worse than primaries. (I'm kinda fond of caucuses, but not for many rational reasons. If we got rid of them in WA, I won't cry.)

[mckeown1128]

6. Clinton supporters are still unaware about the basic concept of democracy...

You don't take results from symbolic votes... because voter's don't takeit seriously.

[Maribelle]

12. However, if Obama's support is eroding in Nebraska, it could affect the state convention.

And although Obama supporters appear still unaware about the state conventions being the authority to 'pledge' delegates in caucus states - - the need to realize that Obama's eroding support in the caucus states could prove significant.

But I also adamantly acknowledge Obama's bulling tactics among caucus delegates works well.

[mckeown1128]

18. There is no evidence of Obama losing support in Nebraska..

in fact he has spiked nationally in support AFTER Nebraska voted... so the limited evidence points to him picking up support.


Also, don't make stupid claims about "Obama bulling caucus delgates" if you have nothing to back it up.

[oldpol]

15. exactly!

well said. the Clinton supporters are really grasping at straws now

[Maribelle]

10. Nebraska's unpledged delegates for Obama are incorrectly reported as pledged.

Many delegates from caucus states, vitally needed for Obama to claim a lead over Hillary, remain unpledged until their state conventions. Nebraska is one of those inaccurately reported by most major news outlets.

However, two more steps are needed in this caucus process before Obama can correctly claim Nebraska's 'soft' delegates as 'pledged:

Sunday 1 June - Tuesday 10 June 2008: County Conventions. County Conventions choose the county's delegates to the Nebraska State Democratic Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated State Democratic Convention delegates.

Friday 20 June - Sunday 22 June 2008: The Nebraska State Democratic Convention convenes. The State Convention chooses 8 of the Nebraska's Pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at the statewide level.

8 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based the support for the presidential contenders in the State Convention as a whole.


http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/NE-D.phtml

[mmonk]

11. Obama won both ways. Nice spin though.

[book_worm]

16. But he won and he got the delegates. End of story.

[Liberal In Texas]

17. I just spent a few days in Nebraska. A lot of people I talked to weren't even bothering to vote.

And according the the Weird Harold the turnout was far short of predictions.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10334576

I don't think anything can be inferred from the difference in the caucus and primary. People figured they'd already voted and weren't going to do it again.