WSJ: Obama's Strategy for Low-Turnout Caucuses Helps Drive Delegate Edge

[ElsewheresDaughter]

May 15, 2008; Page A6

For evidence of the strategy that has made Barack Obama the likely Democratic presidential nominee, look at Nebraska, where the candidate narrowly won a little-noticed primary Tuesday. Sen. Obama's 49% to 46% victory barely got any attention from the campaigns or the press, because the state's delegates, who vote on the nomination, were chosen in a February caucus. In that contest, where turnout was less than half that of the primary, Sen. Obama won in a 68% to 32% blowout and picked up a net eight delegates -- one more than Sen. Hillary Clinton later gained from her big win in the much bigger state of Ohio.

The contrasting Nebraska votes help illustrate how Sen. Obama has done a better job than Sen. Clinton of working low-turnout caucuses for big results, even as she racked up primary wins in some of the largest states. Of the 19 state and territory caucuses held since Iowa's kickoff event in January, Sen. Clinton has won only three. Sen. Obama has picked up a net 145 delegates out of the caucuses, which are open meetings where voters gather to nominate delegates to state conventions, as opposed to ballot-box primaries. That's 95% of his current lead of 152 among delegates chosen by popular votes.

The Democratic Party awards delegates proportionally, which means that landslide wins, even in small states, often yield more delegates than close wins in large states. Sen. Clinton won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary by 200,000 votes and picked up a net gain of 10 delegates. Sen. Obama won the Feb. 5 Idaho caucus by 13,000 votes and picked up a net 12 delegates....

***

The Obama campaign strategy, outlined during a series of meetings late last spring at the Chicago headquarters, was driven in part by a recognition that with early preparation, small and medium-size caucus states could yield as many delegates as many of the big states that were in the process of moving their contests to Feb. 5, the earliest date sanctioned by the Democratic Party. Twenty-two states and territories would hold contests that day, and eight were caucuses. By August, the campaign deployed to those caucus states staff from its Chicago headquarters, who trained local volunteers to run the ground campaign....

Iowa and Nevada were the only caucus states where the Clinton campaign had long-term operations. In most states, the campaign sent in staff weeks before some caucuses, a move that veterans on both sides said is far too little time to effectively organize....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121080653202293285.html

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. Damn foresight and planning.

I hate those qualities in candidates. :sarcasm:

[VotesForWomen]

145. well, i hope he's got a strategy planned for the GE, cuz it's not a caucus of dem activists.

[Labors of Hercules]

171. strategy for the GE?

huh? What? You mean They'll need a strategy to beat Republicans in the General Election??? :wow:

I'd better get on the phone to the Obama campaign and warn them!! :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

179. At least he won't blow through all his money and hire bad advisors.

Can't say the same for Hillary.

[hendo]

180. and hindsight is a b*tch, aint it.

Obama just has a far better plan for the nomination.

[NJSecularist]

2. Obama has gamed the system and in the process lost most of the important states.

He has compiled his delegate margins through low turnout caucuses. They are not indicative of how a state will vote in the general election. I am struggling to find out what Obama's electability argument actually is.

[msallied]

4. I'm struggling to find out what Hillary's is...

since she's, ya know, losing.

[NJSecularist]

8. It's irrelevant to this argument that she's losing.

Obama will finish the primary season losing most of the important states we need to win in the general election... some of them by double digits.

He has benefit from low turnout caucuses and a large black electorate that has engaged in block voting for him... but he will have neither luxury in the general election.

[msallied]

15. You have absolutely NO way of predicting that. None.

Only your deluded pipe dream that he can't pull Democrats to the polls, which he has... in record numbers.

His strategy has been solid from the very beginning and has been expertly executed. Ask the woman who bankrupted herself by not planning for caucus states or primaries after Super Tuesday exactly how her strategy worked out for her.

[NJSecularist]

19. It's easy to get latte liberals and blacks to vote for the Democratic candidate.

But if that was the only coalition needed for a Democrat to win the election, President Gore would be finishing his second term.

Hillary didn't plan much for caucus states because they have been of relative unimportance throughout the history of the Democratic Primary. They are also not indicative of what will happen in the general election.

[msallied]

36. That was her ignorant, arrogant fault. And she's paying the price for it.

If she were still running in the late 90s, pre-Bush, pre-9/11, pre-Iraq War, then her strategy just might have paid off. Sadly doesn't live in the real world. If anything, she has spent most of her time hoodwinking voters who aren't sure exactly where she stands on anything because she's a different candidate in every state she campaigns in. She's losing because people are tired of the same bullshit politics out of D.C. and they organized the biggest grassroots campaign in American history because they want change. Obama played the game differently. For that he should be admired.

[NJSecularist]

40. He should be admired for not winning a single important state?

And for dominating a bunch of low turnout caucuses?

[jenmito]

46. NC's not an important state?

[NJSecularist]

57. The last time North Carolina went Democratic in 1976.

It won't go Democratic this year either.

No, it is not an important state. It is just another state in the South that Obama won due to black bloc voting. North Carolina's electorate is drastically different in the general election, and Obama has no chance of carrying it for that very reason. 40% of the eletorate isn't going to vote for him at a 94% clip in the general election.

[msallied]

63. And what makes you think Hillary would carry WV

since so many people were crowing over that victory recently.

[NJSecularist]

75. Because West Virginia is a traditionally Democratic state

A conservative Democratic state, but a Democratic state nonetheless.

North Carolina is a reliably Republican state, and it has been that way for decades.

[roseBudd]

165. A win that Bill Clinton owes to Ross Perot. Study up.

[jenmito]

73. You're a phony. Good-bye.

[my3boyz]

142. The poster is just getting their talking pts from the Hill campaign. nt

[my3boyz]

141. What abt VA? He kicked her ass in VA, right? Are you saying VA is definately staying red?

If so, I want to bookmark this!

[NJSecularist]

181. Yes, Virginia is definitely staying red.

The last time Virginia went blue was in LBJ's blowout in 1964.

[msallied]

53. "important state"

Okay, chief. I guess there is plenty of evidence to decide who the elitist is around here.

[NJSecularist]

62. Are you disputing that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are more important than Alaska and Idaho?

Is that even under dispute?

Are you serious?

[msallied]

64. Wow. The United States of America is comprised of only 5 states! Wow!

[slinkerwink]

68. Let's just erase all the 45 states then!

[NJSecularist]

80. Are you disputing that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are more important than Alaska and Idaho?

Could you answer the following questions?

A) Were the last two elections decided in the former states (PA, FL, OH) or the latter states (AK, ID)?
B) How many electorate votes do PA, FL and OH have combined? How many electorate votes do Alaska and Idaho have combined?
C) When is the last time PA, FL and OH went Democratic? When is the last time Alaska and Idaho went Democratic?
D) Were the margins of victory in 2000 and 2004 larger in PA, FL, OH or AK or ID?
E) Which 5 states are swing states and which 5 aren't?

[chascarrillo]

99. Yes, I'm disputing that. If Gore had won either ID or AK, he would have clearly won in 2000.

("Clearly" in the sense of Florida being irrelevant to the Electoral Vote, natch.)

Just AK, with three electoral votes, would have decided the election in Gore's favor.

[NJSecularist]

109. Why don't you check the last time Idaho and Alaska went blue?

And what the margins of victory have been since then?

Alaska and Idaho were never in play.

[chascarrillo]

122. The West is going Democratic.

Ignoring us now solely on past history is, I think, very short sighted.

[NJSecularist]

135. Idaho isn't going Democratic. Go look at its history.

Go look at the trends from the state.

[chascarrillo]

136. Let's look at your history instead, shall we?

[ekwhite]

186. As a native North Carolinian, I take umbrage with that comment

Since when was North Carolina not important?

[jenmito]

So which one were YOU when YOU were supposedly an Obama supporter?

[Adelante]

81. Either way

A loon :crazy:

[jenmito]

130. That's for sure!

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

91. Hillary: "... Wonderful tradition of the caucuses."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/iowa/caucus/

Unimportant, huh?

[krkaufman]

129. Your posts illustrate best of all why Hillary is losing

... with the "important states", "latte liberals and blacks" comments. Clinton is losing the nomination because her campaign failed to run a 50-state strategy.

[mamalone]

148. I am personally offended by your post.

Saying that it is "easy to get" a group to vote a certain way in its entirety is a slap in the face of any individual member of that group. It implies that they are herd animals devoid of any critical thinking skills or independence of thought. It is bigotry and racism.

And might I add that statements and attitudes such as the one you have expressed in your post are a huge part of the reason that many of us are turning away from your candidate. At this point there is no way I could vote for Hillary and retain my self-respect because she has stooped to these types of tactics. Even if I did not like Obama, Hillary's behavior has forced me to vote for him- I refuse to reward her for the manipulation of racism and fear.








edited for clarity

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

150. Yeah, all those latte liberals IN NEBRASKA.

Truly a hotbed of the Starbucks elite. :crazy:

[paulk]

169. when you get a turnout of only 20k for a caucus, you mean?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

184. Did you read the post I was responding to? n/t

[Exilednight]

160. Gore got 90% of the AA vote, but the AA vote was a small .......

percentage of overall voters in the 92 and 96 elections. AA's could make up close to 25-30% of the vote, but in 92 they only made up around 12% and in 96 it was closer to 10%. If Gore had a 2% increase in 92 he would have won by landslide in the electoral college. Though it is true that she may win 90% of the AA vote in the GE, 90% will not be enough if the AA vote is a single digit percentile in overall turnout.

Hillary can not get a single voter bloc to turnout for her like Obama does. Less than 50% of all women have voted for her, less than 50% of all men, even the Hispanic and Latino vote have failed to turnout anywhere close to the 90 percentile for her.

[Hansel]

77. So Hillary doesn't need Wisconsin or Illinois?

Sounds like she lost some important states as well so, by your logic, she can't win these states in the GE. Clearly we're doomed.

Do you really believe that because Hillary beat Obama, or Obama beat Hillary in a primary that the other cannot win the state in the general? This is really a ridiculous argument.

[still_one]

94. You are wrong, and those large states like California and New York WILL go for Obama

In fact I am from Northern California, and all I see are Obama stickers. No Hillary, no mccain

and the polls seem to agree, when it is Obama against mccain in the big states, Obama is winning

You don't like the results of the primary, that is ashame because that is most likely how it is going to end up

The way Hillary has ran her campaign only amplify why she is losing. This is a primary, NOT a general election, and Obama came from nowhere. The Clinton's influence should have swept them Hillary to victory, it didn't. As far as your statement about the "low turnout caucuses", THAT IS INCORRECT. This has been record turnouts for Democrats, and Obama has been leading the charge getting new Democrats registered

In addition, how come Obama is getting so much more money than the Clinton campaign?

The only question remains is if Hillary isn't the nominee, will HER supporters vote for the Democratic nominee in November

If they don't, then I suggest they look in the mirror and ask why the hell they were supporting Hillary then, because the Supreme Court is at stake, and there is NO doubt who the Democratic nominee will choose over mccain

Stevens and Ginsburg have a high probability of stepping down. Maybe even Souter

If ANY Democratic supporters candidate doesn't get the nomination, and they decide to sit the election out, or worse, vote for mccain, then they obviously don't understand what THEIR candidate stood for on the issues

[indimuse]

156. tes, indeed!

Block Voting...........Chicago Style!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlATFrHhMQc


http://bp3.blogger.com/_y7akKaUErMI/SC-HYJMyQTI/AAAAAAAAARc/TKPIiczPEGo/s400/Lucky+Kentucky.jpg

[roseBudd]

162. You do realize thay in a primary candidates are vying for the same pool of voters? in

the primary, two candidates with almost identical policy positions are dividing the pie. in the GE Obama will be running against someone whose ideas have been rejected by a majority of voters as being part of that "wrong track" we have been hearing so much about.

You do realize that the huge increase in the turnout of the democratic parties most loyal voting block is what determined the special election in MS. There is no reason to believe this will not also happen in the GE.

And hopefully you realize that no dem candidate has gotten a majority of the white vote HRC claims as the holy grail.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

185. "It's irrelevant..."

I'd like to make the point that it is highly relevant.

Have a nice day. :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. I would like to know that the supers are aware & doing their jobs.........

......but I fear they are listening to the siren sing

[still_one]

98. I would like to remind you that Hillary led in money, Super Delagates

and was suppossed to have no problem securing the nomination. What happened?

Obama won Indiana essentially, a very conservative white state, why?

Polls indicate Obama would win California, if the primary was held again

The truth is Hillary had name recognition, and party influence, and managed her campaign so badly, that it says everything why she is against the ropes

[roseBudd]

166. The supers realize it would be political sucide to take the nomination from the black guy

Many congressional seats depend on AA voters. HRC hurts downticket races.

HRC has high unfavorables.

HRC is described as dishonest & lacking integrity.

[MattBaggins]

172. They are not listening to the siren song

They are ignoring her and rolling their eyes when her campaign staff get done trying to feed them some cow pie soup.

[MadBadger]

9. Bahh

[slinkerwink]

18. Uh, this post shows that his campaign was better run than Clinton's and played by the rules

[NJSecularist]

25. Hillary's campaign was ran just fine.

She has dominated most of the high population primary states. But when your opposing candidate plays the race card and you are immediately in a 90-10 deficit with a significant portion of the Democratic electorate, you will have a hard time digging yourself out of a hole.

[msallied]

39. Are high-population states all that matter now?

And how did he play the race card? I would love to see a quote. ANYTHING to show that he played the race card. What fucking bullshit.

[NJSecularist]

43. High population states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania have decided the last 2 elections.

And they will decide the election in 2008.

[msallied]

60. And there is no reason to believe that Ohio and PA won't go Democrat this fall.

FL has been getting redder and redder every election year. And Democrats have lost because they've only gone after "the important states." It's a stupid, outdated strategy.

[NJSecularist]

82. Yes, there is a very big reason to believe Ohio and Pennsylvania won't go Democratic this fall.

You can't win only 30% of the white vote (like Obama has done in these states) and expect to carry both states. He'll lose both states by 10+ if that happens.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

97. So none of Hillary's voters will vote for him?

By that logic, Hillary will net only 8-10% of the African-American vote nationwide.

[NJSecularist]

100. Blacks are reliably Democratic.

Whites, on the other hand, aren't.

Even in RayGun's blowout in 1984, blacks still voted overwhelming for Mondale.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

104. Still, to assume Obama would receive no Hillary votes is a stretch.

[MessiahRp]

131. Just like the Clintons to take advantage of Blacks

Expect them to fall in line for elections... pretend you care about them and make a ridiculously outrageous claim of being the "first black president" when in reality you sided with corporations and Republicans to push through NAFTA and take away your jobs or signed the Welfare Reform act to take aim at poor people in your neighborhoods.

Yeah they have every reason to just line up and vote for the White people who have done such a great job looking out for their interests so far.

Rp

[msallied]

133. Damn straight! I can't get over the above arrogance.

"Reliably Democratic." Bullshit.

[roseBudd]

163. Nobody said a big FU to African Americans that year, so any assumption by HRC's "change rules in mid

stream" that it will be OK in November is the height of white hypocrisy on the part of the HRC supporters.

[MattBaggins]

173. It's only the big states?

What if Gore had won NH?

[slinkerwink]

48. no, her campaign wasn't run well. The debt is proof of that.

[Adelante]

85. She's $20M in debt

Let's see her dig her way out of it before she's running an entire government further into a hole.

[Hansel]

86. Well she's losing, so clearly it wasn't. eom

[Starbucks Anarchist]

105. She had the majority of AA voters at the beginning.

They didn't flock to Obama at the start.

[indimuse]

157. which is exactky WHY....

I dare you to watch! and then report back to me ...re; racism and THINK very hard.....WHO NEED THE AA VOTE GOING INTO SC? 2 weeks before SC Hillary was in the lead HUGE! until.......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQV4K1eFjI&watch_response TYT:"RACE BAITING BEGAN WITH OBAMA TEAM!" He was very disa ppointed to have to report this being a HUGE BO fan! AGAIN! NO ESCAPING THE TRUTH>>> PROOF "THE RACE THINGS OUT THERE ALL OF SUDDEN, IT WASN'T OUT THERE BEFORE"- TYT JJJ SHOULD BE FIRE FOR 10000th TIME!! Where ARE the DEM'S on THIS!!!!

[still_one]

113. No offense, but BULL. Saying who did or did not contribute most to the civil rights movement

act is one thing, but Bill Clinton minimizing the early Southern state victories as insignificant because those were the same states Jessie Jackson won, was a not too subtle message that Jackson was a loser because he was black.

When the Clinton campaign was constantly implying that "many white Democrats" won't vote for a black man, that was as disgusting and racially intolerable as it gets

I suggest that if there are Democrats today who won't vote for a Democrat solely on the basis of the color of their skin, their religion, or gender, that they are NOT DEMOCRATS, and should get the hell out of the party

It was the Democratic party who passed the Civil Rights act of the 60's.

Not the republicans, but the Democrats

[cliffordu]

30. I just love it when people know what they are doing....

Gamed the system....Indeed.

If you think it's so easy....why not tell Hill and the folks how to do it next time....

[Honeycombe8]

32. Your argument is...Obama is better with strategy, so that proves Clinton would win?

Wow. Talk about illogical.

Obama's campaign decided on a certain strategy to WIN. They COULD have gone after the big states, like Clinton. But for whatever reasons, they decided to do it this way. Possibly because none of the others were doing this strategy? Possibly because this would more likely lead to winning? Possibly because he's trying to change the Dem. GE map?

Clinton's problem was that she didn't hire the right people to strategize. I'm sure you've heard by now that Mark Penn said in an early meeting that when Clinton wins CA, she'll win all the CA delegates in the primary. How could her chief strategist not even know that the Dem. Party uses apportionment in assigning delegates? Yet....and this is key....SHE KEPT HIM ON AS HER CHIEF STRATEGIST, thereby losing the nomination.

A critical quality for a leader to have, as we have seen with Bush's failures, is the ability to select the right people for the job.

[anigbrowl]

55. He didn't game the system: he dealt with it as it is

Caucuses measure a campaign's grassroots organizational ability, something which also matters in the General Election. He passed the test with flying colors.

Look at the contrast. Obama and his team organized to win, and succeeded. Glinton's campaign didn't and now they're sitting around moaning about how mean and unfair the system is. The bottom line is that her campaign was not prepared for the challenge.

[WillyT]

70. I Would Be To... If I Jumped From The QE2, On To The Titanic

That's gotta really suck.





:shrug:

[my3boyz]

140. Keep struggling! He will be president by the time you figure it out. nt

[VotesForWomen]

146. correct. i'm afraidthere is a lot less to O's support than meets the eye, and dems could be in for a

rude awakening in nov if he is the nominee.

[hokies4ever]

159. It's called a 50-state GOTV strategy

Inspiring the people will lead to record numbers of voters at the polls.

[amandabeech]

182. His strategy for gaining the nomination for the Illinois Senate also gamed the system.

He did not attack the other candidates' policies, but instead went after their nominating petitions. He took out his mentor on that.

If I were a paranoid type, I'd think that he had a hand in opening the sealed records of the divorces of the number one candidate for the Dem U.S. Senate nomination and the one for the number one Rep senate candidate. Those two unsealed divorces played a huge part in his election to the U.S. Senate.

So, how's he going to game the U.S. and the World for himself, and why?

[unlawflcombatnt]

3. Great Strategy--How to Go against the will of the voters

The Obama camp has thought of everything to get a their weak candidate nominated.

[msallied]

7. The will of the voters?

Do you or do you not understand the proportional delegate system? If anything, winner-take-all goes against the will of FAR more voters. Be lucky you're not a Republican.

[NJSecularist]

12. Yup. They've exploited every loophole in the book and as such we are in the process

of nominating the weakest Democratic candidate since Dukakis.

[msallied]

20. Where do you come up with this stuff? LOL

Yes, let's nominate the alternative! The one who hasn't been able to crest above the 50% mark in any poll in months, in spite of name recognition and starting out as the "inevitable" winner. whose last big win was in West friggen Virginia, whose negatives far outweigh that of her opponent, who has (in spite of winning larger states) gotten fewer votes and delegates than her opponent.

Yeah... Obama used a different strategy. He went for smaller states and steadily built support from the ground up. Damn, what a cheater!
:rofl:

[NJSecularist]

31. The election is won or lost in the Rust Belt and Appalachia.

Kerry and Gore's inability to tap into those parts of America were their ultimate downfall. And yet we are in the process of nominating a candidate who, despite outspending his opponent 3:1, still lost both states by 10 points.

[msallied]

50. LOL. Your talking points are about as stale as month-old bread. And about as useless.

See, because here we are now and it is a direct result of a poorly-run campaign. Poorly run because it's 20 million in debt, because it's cynical, because people do not TRUST Clinton, and because she looked down her nose at the smaller states until it became apparent to her that she was losing after Super Tuesday.

[NJSecularist]

87. The election is won or lost in the Rust Belt and Appalachia.

Dispute that.

Why did we lose the last two elections? Because Kerry and Gore got beaten around in Appalachia and the Rust Belt. And Obama won't do much better.

[WonderGrunion]

144. Actually. . .

Kerry and Gore failed to secure the southern states won by Carter and Clinton.

You might want to join Kevin James in a remedial history class.

[WonderGrunion]

143. Is this your first presidential election?

Because in all the ones I've been involved with, it's the strength or weakness of the Democratic candidate in the south that has determined their ultimate victory. That's why our only Democratic presidents in the last 30 years have been southern governors. Obama's strength in southern states show that he has a huge demographic advantage over Hillary.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

151. No.

The rust belt and Appalachia do not have special magical powers. Obama puts states in the west in play that Hillary doesn't. Hillary puts states in Appalachia in play that Obama doesn't. Same difference.

[MattBaggins]

174. Wrong

Gore lost in NH.

[kid a]

27. dum de dum dumb

[MadBadger]

13. More people have voted for him and more delegates have pledged to him

So what the hell are you talking about?

[woolldog]

6. k&r for Obama's wonderful planning.

I have no doubt if the rules were different his campaign would have adjusted accordingly and still kicked ass.

[msallied]

11. Yeah, cuz Hillary's strategy to go for the big states and ignore the rest

worked out GREAT. Or so says those who still think Hillary is more electable. lmao

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. reading comprehension?

[democrattotheend]

10. Yeah, they understood the rules

And played where they thought they had the biggest advantage. And besides, he still leads in the popular vote, so it's a BS argument.

Clinton could have put money and organizers into the caucus states but she chose to ignore them. Now she is trying to cherry-pick delegates and delegitimize caucuses because they did not turn out well for her. Yet another example of her trying to change the rules mid-game.

I agree that there are some issues with caucuses, and i encourage her and her supporters to take it up with the DNC in planning for 2012. But for her to use them to delegitimize Obama at this late stage is despicable. If she really had as many passionate supporters as she is trying to demonstrate now, why couldn't she find more people who were willing to take the time to caucus for her?

[rug]

22. The same rules that let every state vote?

The same rules that let superdelegates vote as they wish?

The same rules that do not bind pledged delegates?

OK, then.

[democrattotheend]

35. Fine, so you won't mind when the superdelegates put Obama over the top?

You won't complain that they pushed her out?

[rug]

45. You won't mind that it goes to the Convention?

You won't mind a rules battle over seating Florida and Michigan?

No, I don't mind at all.

[democrattotheend]

79. Go ahead and seat Michigan and Florida. He'll still have the lead.

And the superdelegates can come out for him on June 4 and give him 2025 or even 2210. If she wants to make a joke of herself by staying in the race until August go for it. She'll never be able to run again, and I know I for one am saving up money starting now to be able to max out to anyone who runs against her in a primary for her senate seat if she does that.

And I think Michigan and Florida will be resolved by May 31.

[rug]

96. Good. Why all the wailing then?

[grytpype]

16. Obama is smarter than Hillary. I know who I'm backing!

And it's not the whiny hag who loses and then whines about how unfair it all is!

[VotesForWomen]

147. smart like Tricky Dick, you mean? and Hillary's a 'hag' is she? really representin for O, aren't yo

you?

[grantcart]

17. ready on day none

having been through the system twice the seasoned pro had no idea what was really going on


how does this help her?

[AtomicKitten]

21. Hillary: Not ready to run a campaign on day #1.

[ProSense]

23. Obama won 16 primaries; Hillary lost 16 caucuses. Obama won 32 contests to Hillary's 17

She lost. Stop blaming the winner for the loser's loss.

[NJSecularist]

37. He's won a lot of irrelevant caucuses like Idaho or Alaska.

Or in Obama-land are we going to carry those states in the general election? :crazy:

[ProSense]

42. Were the 16 primaries irrelevant too? Why can't Hillary win caucuses?

Hillary Clinton: Caucusing is Easy

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

56. VT, WI, and a few others. Why? n/t

[NJSecularist]

67. So 2 out of 16?

That is about 13% of all the primaries he won?

That inspires a lot of confidence. :crazy: :crazy:

[ProSense]

78. Logic: "and a few others" means there are more. Still, what difference does it make, explain? n/t

[NJSecularist]

88. What are the few others?

Quit dodging the question.

[ProSense]

89. Go look them up. Your, but the black vote argument is BS. Hillary lost. Again,

Hillary lost, despite her "hard working" "white Americans."

[NJSecularist]

92. Go look them up?

So, in other words, you have nothing else?

:rofl: :rofl:

The black vote is significantly smaller in the general election. You can't expect to win 30% of the white vote (like Obama has) in the general election and not end up as the next Walter Mondale.

[ProSense]

95. That's right: Go look them up. It'll do you good to become personally acquainted with the facts. n/t

[NJSecularist]

101. So you have nothing?

As I thought. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

2 out of 16 is a pitiful percentage.

[ProSense]

108. Here is

something

"2 out of 16 is a pitiful percentage."

Isn't that the percentage of caucuses Hillary won? Or is it 1 out of 16?

On edit: Oops it was worse, she won 2 (or 1) out of 18 (or 17).

[NJSecularist]

111. That doesn't answer my question.

Could you be any more dishonest?

[ProSense]

112. Clue: You got your answer, that you don't like it is your problem.

Can you be more desperate?

[NJSecularist]

115. No, I clearly didn't get an answer to my question.

You just gave me another one of your compilation spin job threads.

[slinkerwink]

44. Uh, actually, it does seem that way. I really wish you would stop peddling these delusions.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

47. so you are advocating dems ignoring states like those? n/t

[NJSecularist]

71. Yes. Democrats aren't going to win those states.

And low turnout caucuses in those states are even more irrelevant to any electability argument.

[Chisox08]

128. How do you know that Democrats will not win those states?

That the same thinking that we lost with in 2000 and 2004. That is why Howard Dean runs the DNC he just like Obama saw how important turning those normally red states blue. The fact is Dean's 50 state plan is working because Obama used it to beat Clinton and he will use it to beat McCain. They vote Republican consistently because the Democrats ignore them and think that their states are insignificant because they will only vote republican anyway.
I hope Hillary and her supporters are not taking the black vote for granted. Because we are tired of the Democrats taking our votes for granted. We won't go out and vote for McCain but most blacks won't go out and vote for Hillary, because they will feel that another election has been stolen.
No vote is insignificant no matter where it comes from. The only reason FL and MI vote do not count in the primary is because they broke the rules set up by the DNC. Hillary agreed to that fact that those votes would not count until she saw that she need those votes just to shrink Obama's lead by a few delegates. Hillary has lost she was a tough opponent. Now it's time to heal our wounds and prepare for the fight against McCain.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. If they have delegates, they're not irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm guessing if Hillary had taken them, they would not be seen as being nearly so irrelevant.

Maybe you should be advocating to have those states removed from the primary process next time around.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Awesome

The Obama campaign is so smart. I know who I want running the country. Obama will definitely be ready on day one.

[quantass]

26. Obama leads in Popular Vote, States Won, Delegates, Super Delegates - THAT SAYS IT ALL

[kid a]

28. sucks don't it

[RichardRay]

29. Lorem epsom ipson dolor sic

Lorem epsom ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet epsom sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic epsom amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem. Lorem ipson dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad epsom valorem. Lorem ipson epsom dolor sic amet sec in consetum nunc ad valorem.

[rug]

34. Caveat emptor.

[RichardRay]

51. Caveat venditor

[rug]

59. Caveat elector.

[ProSense]

74. Caveat: Hillary lost n/t

[rug]

93. Blenna festina.

[RichardRay]

84. Cave! (of everything)

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[ProSense]

38. Oh, a must-see video

Hillary Clinton: Caucusing is Easy

[Cali_Democrat]

52. ...

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

41. I'm very glad we've got a good strategist as our nominee.

Thanks for the article. Hope you're feeling a bit better about his impending nomination. :)

[Skink]

54. Obama wisely realized this is a fifty state campaign....

Republicans are retiring in droves in 08. This an historic time, we can pick up large majoriies through out the country.In large part due to Obama.

[BlooInBloo]

61. I'm so glad the bad strategist has lost.

[lojasmo]

65. Tough to win when your opponent has strategy.

Must suck.

[scheming daemons]

66. Key point of headline: Obama HAD a strategy... Clinton DID NOT.... This is a key point:

I want a President who thinks ahead and doesn't make assumptions.


Candidates run the government like they run their campaigns.


Hillary's campaign was disorganized, bloated, and they spent beyond their means. That's the kind of government she'd run.


Obama's campaign was organized, sleek, and operated in the black. That's the kind of government he'd run.



This campaign has shown that Obama would be a much better President than Clinton. MUCH better.

[slinkerwink]

72. and it's a great campaign he's running!

[rug]

76. As long as he can end the war by caucus.

[scheming daemons]

83. He's ahead in the popular vote as well... and won the same amoung of primary states as Clinton...

...but don't let facts get in the way.


The Clintons and their supporters had no problem with the caucus system in '92 and '96.

They had no problem with the caucus system prior to Iowa... or in Nevada.



Only when they got outsmarted by their opposition, did the caucus system all of sudden become bad.



Sore losers. All of you. Your candidate wasn't smart enough. That means she would likely not be smart enough as President either.


She's a checkers player in a world that needs a chess player.

[rug]

107. None of which translates into presidential leadership.

The world does not run on primary election rules.

Maybe he should try a Mideast caucus.

[scheming daemons]

110. His acumen in running this campaign shows LEADERSHIP and INTELLIGENCE

The world is run by those that can think and plan ahead.


That's what Obama did.


It's what Clinton is incapable of doing.


It's why he'll be a better President than she ever could be.

[rug]

114. If he was strategizing a rollout of New Coke, I'd agree.

Outside the Democratic primaries, parsing DNC caucus rules is not strategic planning.

The world does not run by these rules.

[scheming daemons]

120. You're getting hung up on the minutae. Leaders lead. They attack the problems based on the

parameters involved.


Goal: Winning the nomination.


Obama formulated a plan to achieve that goal. Clinton relied on her name recognition.




How these two candidates approached achieving their goal goes a long way toward showing what kind of leaders they are.


We learned this about Obama:

1. He can raise money
2. He can manage a nearly 1/3 billion operation and operate in the black
3. He can hire the best and brightest, at a decent cost, and get them to work enthusiastically for him


We learned this about Hillary:

1. She can only raise money from fatcats and lobbyists - for the most part.
2. She can piss away nearly 1/4 billion, end up millions in debt, and STILL come in second
3. She hires incompetent, overpriced goofs who are out for themselves and don't have her best interests at heart.



She has shown a LACK of ability at running a large enterprise. How would she handle an even LARGER one?

He has shown a GREAT ability at running a large enterprise. This inspires confidence that he could handle a larger one.




Your candidate is a failure. She had a $100 million edge going in..... and she pissed it away... only to come in second.


50 years from now, her campaign will STILL be talked about in the same breath with things like the Hindenberg, the Titanic, and Iraqi Republican Guard.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

123. Beat me to it.

[rug]

124. You can't get more minute than caucus rules.

And if you believe running a primary campaign is anything like running a government, his administration will be discussed in the same hushed tones as Harding's.

[scheming daemons]

134. Now you're just being silly....

There really is no better preparation for running a large enterprise than successfully running a smaller one first.


It shows a person's management style.


Hillary's management style is out-of-touch top-down cronyism.


Obama's management style is merit-based empowerment.



The past 16 months have shown us that ....while Obama may or may not be able to handle running the government.... Hillary is definitely INCAPABLE of doing so.

[woolldog]

138. I want a President who pays attention to detail.

and can see the big picture at the same time.

[MattBaggins]

176. Not helping your arguement

If a campaign is not more difficult than a New Coke rollout, why would want Hilalry then. If she can't handle something that simple, who in their right mind would give her control of our health care system?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

117. Poor money management and bad advisors don't bode well, either.

[rug]

118. An election is not an administration.

[scheming daemons]

121. It *IS* insight in how the candidate leads and manages....

Hillary failed the test.. Miserably.


Obama passed with flying colors.

[MattBaggins]

177. Actually yes it is

Many people in the Campaign staffs will be brought on board in to the administrations. I really would question Clinton's ability to select a top notch Cabinet.

[MattBaggins]

175. If she had no strategy for running a campaign

how are we supposed to believe she has one for running the country?

[anigbrowl]

69. Behold the results of advance planning

You better believe Obama's going to fight the 2012 caucuses just as diligently as he did the 2008 ones.

[Adelante]

90. A brilliant campaign

Too bad for her that Clinton didn't run the smart campaign.

[still_one]

103. That says everything. Obama was an unknown, Clinton was the assumed candidate

for the Democrats. She had people on the ground for years, waiting for this opportunity

That she ran her campaign so badly, demonstrates why she is in the position she is in now

[chascarrillo]

102. Again, Clinton supporters retreat to Murdoch-owned media. Brilliant!

[Azathoth]

106. Obama shrewdly employed a well-crafted strategy to challenge an entrenched celebrity candidate

whose overwhelming advantage in terms of fund-raising, name-recognition, and establishment support made her 'inevitable'. Obama reasoned that careful organization would be able to overcome Hillary's celebrity and the smash-mouth politics her minions would use against him. He was right.

As far as the WSJ article goes, consider:

Popular vote (just considering votes for Obama and Hillary)
Obama 51% Hillary 49%

Pledged delegates (just considering Obama and Hillary)
Obama 52% Hillary 48%

I see no inequity there.

[still_one]

116. And as an angry white person, I voted for Obama to boot /nt

[Azathoth]

125. Well, clearly your vote shouldn't count then

After all, angry 'hard-working' white folk are supposed to vote for her. :rofl:

[still_one]

137. Except one small exception, I have a college degree /nt

[MattBaggins]

178. I guess we're just lazy apathetic whites

and don't realize it.

[anonymous171]

119. That bastard got people to vote! Fuck him.

[DearAbby]

126. We heard there was record turnouts for Caucus'

Here where I live there was a record turnout for our caucus. This is a bullshit argument, if Clinton didn't like the rules, they should have been changed prior to any votes being cast, that includes caucus votes.

[dempartisan23]

127. clinton blew it. poor planning for a so-called pro

the obama campaign is brilliant!!

[theHandpuppet]

132. Saw this being discussed on the McLaughln Report

Fascinating stuff.

My conclusion: What an idiotic way to "select" a Presidential candidate. Such a flawed system can be manipulated.

[my3boyz]

139. Booohoooo....Obama is smarter than Bill and Hill put together! Boohoooo..nt

[eridani]

149. And Clinton didn't use this strategy because why? n/t

[ecdab]

152. She wishes like heck that she did - this is just another sour grapes thread

and really shouldn't be looked at in a serious manner.

[dcindian]

153. Obama has beat the nuke happy warmonger in every category

Every single one.... except the republicans participating in operation chaos that is.

[indimuse]

154. Exactly! Less = MORE = Obama !

No Cauacusing In GE Obama Peeps! ((Obama = FAIL!}}

[indimuse]

155. knr!

thx 4 post.

[dempartisan23]

158. bill clinton had been through the nomination process in 1992

he should have known how important caucuses are. the fact is hillary thought the nomination was hers on a silver platter.

[indimuse]

161. BO brought his Chicago style cheaters with him...

His rep in Chicago is NOT good!

[dempartisan23]

167. GOBAMA

he is great

[indimuse]

183. then you like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caMhgXolZ4I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rylr3_GjMmk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlATFrHhMQc

[ShortnFiery]

164. LOL the WSJ?!? You might as well cite The National Review Online.

:crazy:

[geek tragedy]

168. Your candidate LOST. Get over it already. n/t

[saltpoint]

170. I think the blame lies squarely with the voters.

Those people showed up and expressed a preference in the presidential race.

That's appalling.

I just can't accept it.