Truly, perhaps almost as important as Hillary's official butt-kickin' of "the likely nominee" tonight in WV, IMHO.

Adds mega-fuel to the fire surrounding the concept of taking popular vote Primary results much more seriously and credibly than caucus results.

In fact, many, including major foreign press outlets, have said for over three months that perhaps the most important argument that may be made to a superdelegate to support HRC is when you strip out the caucus results and just focus upon the numbers from the states that had bonafide Primary elections.

And, the word: "thumping" was what CNN's John King called Hillary's landslide romp over you-know-who in WV.

I proposed earlier that Clinton should try to get the WA and TX delegations seated based solely on their primary results, but that was ruthlessly hammered upon by Obama supporters, so I don't think you will get much sympathy here, though that is not what you are proposing.

Hmmmm.

what a coincidence!!!

Hillary44.com or Taylor??

I think her campaign should SUE the DNC.

It weakens Obama's argument that superdelegates should not overturn the decision of hte  "pledge delegates".

No Democrat has won the general election since 1916 (nineteen freakin' sixteen!) without winning WV in the GE.

This is a major reality, certainly worthy of better denial and craftier spin than you're attempting to put on it here!

Add the Nebraska beauty contest results tonight, compared to the caucus results there, and there's a massive story worth spinning! Why? Because it's as credible and factual as it gets.

Unless you'd prefer letting the Republicans win the White House again, before giving the nom to HRC! Then where would you be? We couldn't be that pragmatic, could we? After all, we're DEMOCRATIS!  :-(

I would agree that caucuses are an imperfect, if economical, means by which the state parties administer the voting.  I'd prefer to avoid them.  That being said, the absolutely worst time possible to rework these things is in the middle of the primary season, in order to change the winner.

Succeeding within a flawed system is far more legitimate than failing in one and creating a new one to aid a particular candidate.  The former involves skill and planning, whereas the latter includes intellectual dishonesty and frankly whining by the candidate that the rules be changed out of self-interest.

This isn't the time to fix this stuff.  By all means, point out the flaws, but don't be insane enough to think it's going to change anything now, nor should it.

Also, to those who think that, had we had no primaries, Obama would have lost most of those states, please understand that the degree of skill and planning that his staff has shown should tell us, if nothing else, they'd have tailored their strategy to whatever system we'd have used.

Bottom line - trying to guess who would have won under any other system is entirely academic.  We can't know how it would have went because it never happened.

You can say the same thing over and over, and find whatever new ways you want to say it.  Rules should be changed before not after a contest. No matter how desperately you try to tie meaningless things into your arguement they are still meaningless.   West Virginia had no impact, and just because people are voting for one candidate says nothing about willingness to vote for another candidate.   And Clinton and her supporters limited view of the electoral map is one big reason why she should not be nominated.

Now if you are making the arguement that the rules should be changed for future contests fine. I agree, that they should. But as far as this contest goes the rules were established ahead of time, if Clinton failed to understand them, I guess she didn't have as much experience as she thought.

If I'm not mistaken, based on what you've presented, the Nebraska caucuses violate the letter of the rules as well as the spirit, yes?

It's not as though these Democratic principles need to be derived from "penumbras and emanations" coming from other rules; they're stated flatly in those you cited.

As the poaching of pledged delegates has begun by a Maryland Clinton pledged delegate moving to Obama, I think these arguments you raise are compelling enough that some delegates awarded by subversive "democracy-loophole" caucuses should join Clinton's camp.  This is especially true in states where both primaries and caucuses were held: Texas, Washington, Nebraska.  

If anyone was in a position to to change the rules of the Democratic primary over the last 16 years it was Bill or Hillary. Well I'll grant you one, Harold Ickes.

How much effort have they put into making sure "undemocratic" caucuses were eliminated ? What did they do to make sure that all the states played a role in deciding who the nominee would be.

The total intelectual dishonesty of having absolutelly no problem with the whole setup, agreeing with all the rules, doing nothing to change them and then make a 180 degrees flip at the moment you're losing, is mindbogling. Not the kind of team I would like to see in the White House.

Obama WON the Nebraska Presidential Caucuses AND the Presidential Preference "Primary"...

Must be that problem he has with white working class voters...

Or something.

Seriously, you folks are really, really sad and desperate.

You hitched your wagons to the wrong horse, and many of you, in doing so, managed to alienate huge swaths of your former allies, friends, and compatriots.

And now you will do, say, recite, and write just about ANYTHING to justify and defend your stupidity.

Good luck with that.

Let me be clear about where I am coming from first and foremost. I spent the bulk of the primary season on a boat in the middle of the pacific ocean with extremely limited access to email, and barely any internet.

I started the primary season agnostic on ANY candidate, wishing that someone interesting and different would run.

I came off that boat and started looking at who was still standing (Clinton and Obama) and liked obama better for a number of reasons.

Then came the shitstorm. Obama supporters are cultists. Obama is a Muslim/BlackPowerAdvocate/Racist/Connect edtoKenyanThugs/AssociatedWithTheWeather men and on and on and on.

And the racism.

And the nonsense about "important states"

And with each one, the "Hillary Dial" got turned lower and lower and lower in my mind.

Nice work.

Andrewalker argues that caucuses violate the DNC rules because caucuses significantly reduce participation in the delegation selection process compared to primaries.  So, he believes Rule 3b requires states to choose an electoral system that will maximize participation by voters.  

Sorry, that interpretation butchers the plain meaning of the rules.  Go back and look - Rule 3a and 3b address scheduling issues, not methods of choosing delegates such as caucuses or primaries.  In other words, Rules 3a & b simple say that caucuses or primaries should be scheduled in ways that will maximize voter participation.  

In fact, Rule 3a specifically mentions caucuses as a one way a state can choose delegates.  

I briefly mentioned it above, but some here are placing far more emphasis on these aspirational rules than they can possibly bear.  Here is one possible interpretation of the rules cited above:

Rule 2.A. - "Participation in the delegate selection process shall be open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats."

Therefore, any "delegate selection process" that does not permit voters to register as Democrats immediately before the process (i.e., same-day registration) violates the spirit of this rule.

Rule 3.A. - "All official Party meetings and events related to the national convention delegate selection process, including caucuses, conventions, committee meetings, filing dates, and Party enrollment periods, shall be scheduled for dates, times and public places which would be most likely to encourage the participation of all Democrats, and must begin and end at reasonable hours."

Therefore, all events related to the "delegate selection process" that are not scheduled on weekends violate the spirit of this rule, because contests scheduled on days and at times where a majority of people work cannot "encourage the participation of all Democrats," almost by definition.

As for Rule 3.B., I'm actually not sure what moral force is supposed to be derived from it, since it merely states that the "first meeting or event" in a state's selection process shall be carried out at the same date and time unless doing so would "significantly" reduce participation.  The Nebraska caucuses were held on the same date and at the same times, so far as I know.

That are almos entirely white, not especially affluent, and definitely on the elder side.

You do know he won the primary, right, in spite of the demographics of the state overwhelmingly favoring Clinton?

So you see, it really isn't a white voter problem or a lower-income voter problem he has, it really is limited to Appalachia.

In keeping with the spirit of the DNC rules that require selection processes to "encourage the participation of all Democrats," the DNC made a stunning announcement that no further consideration would be made for seating the FL & MI delegates.  

Democratic voter turnouts in those states clearly fell well below national averages, clearly indicating those processes were not in keeping with the spirit of the Rules.  HRC supporters were herewith encouraged to STFU about FL & MI if they're going to complain about NE.

TX and WA proving this too!
every time when we had caucus and primary in the same state, results of primary are vastly different from results of caucus.
All delegates from caucuses have to be ignored. If you want will of the people, you need closed primaries (and ideally direct vote).
And you have wrong rules - acknowledge wrong doing and correct it.

It's well-established fact that caucusing is easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=racTAiemE QU

Er - sorry, that was six months ago, when the Clinton campaign was sane, acknowledged that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count, and that 2,025 was the threshold for the nomination.

Then again, I guess this is an improvement over the "Obama talks on a cell phone in front of reporters JUST LIKE BUSH" diaries.

And there's nothing on the front page.

But there's lots of Hillary Rodham Clinton stuff.

You need to add some front pagers who aren't so focused on presidential politics.

Rule 3.A makes explicit mention to caucuses, allowing them. Issue closed.

That you copy-pasted these rules obviously doesn't mean you bothered to read them, either you or Jerome.

It merely mean you're Lawful Evil caring to use the letter of the law when that suits you, and ignoring it in favor of its "spirit" when it does not. And the spirit of the law is always what you intend it to be, of course.

1. Eliminate caucuses, they're undemocratic.

2. Keep superdelegates, they can fix voters' mistakes

3. Counting results from a contest people are told won't count is more democratic than counting results from a contest where people are told they will count

4. Dozens of states, including Iowa, have been fundamentally in violation of the DNC rules for decades, but only now have the brilliant sleuths of myDD tracked them down.

5. The campaigns would have acted in exactly the same way, and people would have acted exactly the same way, if the rules had been different all along.

6. "Participation in the delegate selection process shall be open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats."...we should have same-day registration primaries everywhere?

7. "All official Party meetings and events related to the national convention delegate selection process, including caucuses" this naturally leads to the conclusion that caucuses are in violation of the spirit of the DNC rules

8. Texas - where both the primary and caucus were actual races - suggests a swing of about 5-10 points towards Obama for caucuses. Take that away from all his caucus victories and his pledged delegate lead shrinks a bit, but does not disappear. However, his popular vote lead grows enormous when you account for the increased turnout. So - if you use this argument, you're going to have to drop the popular vote thing.

9. Shorter version of this diary: If things had been different maybe Clinton would have won.

When the reasonable diarists start looking like the unreasonable ones, it's a clear sign this has gone on too long.

 Rules might favor a particular strategy, but not a particular candidate.

Obama still won!... you want a couple more delegates 'cos he won by less... fine... take 'em.. we've got plenty to spare... you're still losing the nomination.

Honestly, I've never heard so much whining before... A lot of people didn't like Kerry... but no one tried to take the nomination from him... He was winning...

Bill Clinton had no problem winning caucuses... The Hillary camp certainly could have won them if they tried, but they didn't try... you should blame them, not the system.

Caucuses are cheaper and better for party business.  The state parties hold them for a reason, usually 'cos the various states won't pay for true primaries.  If you want to bankrupt the democratic party by having them pay for every primary, go ahead...  I know that Clintons left most of the state parties bankrupt after they left office, so I can see why this would appeal to Hilary supporters.

Next thing you know, there will be whining about the electoral college when Hillary steals the nomination and loses in the general...  We've been through that before... it's not going to change the constitution.  That's the way the game is played, whether you like it or not!

You bring up a valid point in the Caucus Vs Primary debate.

But your tone and implications are absolute BS.  You imply Obama is responsible for the Nebraska caucus...  He didn't force Nebraska into a caucus.  He didn't sue Nebraska into a caucus.  HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY STATE CHOOSING TO DO A CAUCUS.  In fact Illinois, HIS HOME STATE, does a Primary.  

You sit and complain about the rules Andrew, pretty much following "super" (bad) strategist Mark "California is a winner take all state...ooops" Penn and the Clintons.  Yes, caucuses are probably not as fair as primaries... but that's not Obama's fault nor problem.  HE ran a great campaign that KNEW the RULES and structured their strategy accordingly.  Clinton did not, and it cost her the nomination.  I understand your upset by this, but to attack Obama because states do caucuses is utterly ridiculous.  It's like me blaming Hillary because some primary states don't have laws that help make it easier for College Students to vote.  Both arguments are ridiculous.

Fight to change the rules, but don't badmouth a candidate because he worked within the rules to win... Its "gaming" the system, its playing within the rules.

Obama Edges Out Clinton in Nebraska Primary
Posted: May 14, 2008 01:53 AM
Lincoln, NE - In Nebraska's presidential primary, Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain took the top spot.

In the Democratic primary for president, Barack Obama came from behind to beat Hillary Clinton.  With 97 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday night, Obama won 49 percent of the vote. Clinton received 46 percent.

of this caucus foolishness.

It would be one thing if there was some correlation, but it is clear the caucus system invites people with no jobs or really good jobs.  

Normal people will not take 2 hours out to play political games in public.  Especially with volitale candidates separated by race and gender.

Also, the idea that obama got more delegates from Idaho than Clinton got from New Jersey is so absurd that there should be a revolt.

Obama people would have credibility if on the day this primary ends, they offer real democratic reforms.

I've participated in two caucuses here in Minnesota.  The first was great.  It was here the U and there were lots of young energetic people with opinions and resolutions to discuss.  My second caucus this year was a joke.  The guy that led it spent half the time reading the rules.

It wouldn't break my heart to see the caucus replaced by a primary.  It's more convenient for people that work nights and in general.

Regarding the rest of this diary.  Both candidates knew the rules.  They knew which states have caucuses and which ones have primaries.  With the exception of Mark Penn they knew delegates weren't given on a winner take all basis.  Heck, Hillary has been through this process a couple of times already when Bill ran.

So, they both knew the rules and planned their strategy.  Obama put alot of focus on the caucus states.  Hillary could have done the same thing.  She had money.  She had the name recognition.  However, she chose a different strategy, to not focus on the caucus states and it cost her.

The screaming Clinton maniacs really have trouble with losing, don't they?  I am always entertained by all the different ways they come up with showing how, in an alternate universe with different rules, Hillary would have won ...

A couple of points:

I am 99% sure that the Democratic caucus in Nebraska took place on a Saturday, so all the comments about the system inviting people with no jobs or with really good jobs totally fails.

While the article was interesting as an intellectual exercise, the idea that the caucus results are somehow tainted due to this hypothesis is laughable.  Obama is not to blame for the rules.  You can bet your ass that if Hillary won a caucus or two, this argument would be laughed at by her campaign and all her supporters. Winning by the rules is not "gaming" the system.  There was nothing underhanded about how Obama won the caucuses.

This really seems like sour grapes.  I voted in the Missouri primary and was not sure who I was going to vote for until I got into the voting booth.  I was a big defender of Hillary until recently.  But the idea, suggested by a number of commenters, that this state of affairs reveals something about the electability of the two is silly.

You know, you guys were all celebrating a Clinton Indiana victory a just a bit ago.  Margin was smaller there.  Do you want two percent to be huge or a tie?

Why couldn't Clinton close the deal on the NE primary?

Are Clinton supporters going to add these results, now, to Obama's popular vote lead? Or does it not count?

Do you think that it made a difference that the primary really didn't count for the presidential election? Disclaimer, I think it's awesome that Kleeb won.

I understand that one of the foci of your post is that we should reform the rules for a future election.  Why not talk about it? However, one candidate won the system that was in place for this year.

   with this nonsense? How on Earth do you get the # that puts Clinton and Obama virtually tied?

  All caucus goers support Obama, while all primary voters support Clinton? Are you serious?

  This is ridiculous. You have no way of knowing whether Clinton would've won a NE primary or whether Obama would've beaten her the way he did in the caucus.

  Quit whining about the caucuses. Obama has won several primaries in addition to dominating the caucus states.

So when you say that 49% to 47% in NE is a virtual tie, then that means a 2 point spread in Indiana is a virtual tie?

Milbank has a great column today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862. html?hpid=topnews

2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

On the way into town, she makes an unscheduled stop at an upscale farmers market, but about 30 Clinton supporters, several wearing AFSCME T-shirts and waving Clinton campaign signs, have

somehow gotten wind of it. Clinton works the crowd, signing autographs and making small talk ("Is that your dog?"). She makes her way past rows of geraniums and marigolds.

But even among the blooms, Clinton is reminded of her troubles. She stops at Ellen's Homemade Ice Cream and orders a scoop of espresso Oreo and a scoop of butter pecan. "Ooh, that looks good," she says after taking the confection, then pauses. "Now, let's see. Who's got my money?" asks the woman who has lent her campaign $11 million to keep it afloat. She laughs. "Where -- where'd they go, the people with my money?" Finally, two aides arrive to retire Clinton's dessert debt.

C ustomer: "Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

Pet-shop owner: "No, no he's not dead, he's -- he's resting! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian blue, isn't it, aye? Beautiful plumage!"

-- From "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

They both have the same opportunity to get their voters out.

    but Obama won the vote you are citing too, and did so by a larger % than Hillary won Indiana.

   West VA last night means Clinton has won exactly ONE, ONE more primary than Barack Obama. ONE.

   This bullshit that only Clinton can win primaries is nonsense.

Caucuses keep the party firmly in control of the people.  For lower level races like State House that is essential.  You don't have to rely on big money to get elected, you can work your butt off and get your message out, you don't need huge checks.  It gets better politicians out of the process.  Paul Wellstone came from a Caucus process for example.  He never would have had a chance in a primary system.  

Caucuses are what allocate the delegates.   The Obama campaign was prepared to contest the caucuses, the Clinton campaign was not.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we had had a primary-based nominating process, Clinton would be our nominee.

I personally detest the caucus process.  I think very little of our overall delegate selection process as well.   But team Obama understood the rules better, and ran a better campaign against those rules.

Will we have the weaker candidate in the fall as a result?  I think so.  But that doesn't matter at this point.   What matters are the rules.

Could the superdelegates reverse Obama's PD win?  They could.  That's in the rules.  But to do so would sow the seeds of a rupture in the party.  The media is in bed with Obama, reinforcing the notion that he is inevitable as they have been since Iowa.   The media has shaped the debate to the point where SDs would be foolish indeed to take this away from Obama.

a win is a win...Obama 49  clinton 47

Silliness....energy lost that should be devoted to going after McShame and his crowd.  I worked campaigns for Democrats since 1976, am a PCO in Washington (we select delegates by caucus) and formally in Iowa (a caucus state).  No candidate or supporters of candidates have bitched and moaned about the "system" more then the current supporters of Ms. Clinton.  Get real...her husband ran the party for 8 years and did not get rid of the caucaus system.  She ran aggressively in Iowa and Nevada and did not pull out because they were 'undemocratic" (in fact she boasts of winning Nevada).  Stop the moaning...the system is what it is.  Lets focus on November and electing democrats not on crying over the loss in the nomination process by a candidate that miscalculated the system and lost.

Excuses...

The Hillary campaign has been all about excuses since February on, at least...

The game is played the way it is played.  The Clintons certainly know how to win caucuses...  Bill  Clinton won dozens of them... In fact, that's where he excelled.

They simply fumbled the ball by not having a post Feb. 5th strategy...

So, since then, it's all been about excuses and what could have been.  Hilary is no neophyte.  She should have known how to play the game.  She didn't and she lost...

There are no do-overs in politics...  better luck next time.

That more people voted in a caucus that elected delegates than a meaningless straw poll.  It simply boggles the mind.

Hillary could have done better, maybe if she would have campaigned there, but she did not.  Nuff said!

I stopped in to see if MyDD had picked up the circle jerk we last saw after PA.

Yep.

Ahh, well, let 'em have their fun. It's amusing.

are the supers going to look at this as they make their choice?  Obama is ahead through caucuses, but seems to have lost all the primaries. Does this even register for the DNC, or is the "fix" already in for Obama?

Seems this is what people have been saying all along, is that the caucuses gave Obama his early lead but he can't close the deal through primaries.

Anyone know?

But they are expensive so will the DNC help the states who can't afford them?  It's something that would have to be discussed.

As for this election and elections in the past.  If we're going to try to recalculate who would have won the primary if the rules had been different in this election, then who would have won if the rules had been different in prior elections?  Would we have had Clinton as president?  Who knows?  Hindsight is nice but we really have to move forward.

What is wrong with you people?  I read these comments and it appears that you have taken leave of your senses.  

4justice writes: Obama is ahead through caucuses, but seems to have lost all the primaries.

No, Obama won a lot of primaries too.

I just scrolled through a bunch of the comments and it appears that I am not alone in my appraisal of MyDD.com.  I used to have a lot of respect for the people who run this site, but it appears to have become a lint trap for Clinton apologists.

Get it together or become irrelevant.

Nothing like casting doubts on the legitimacy of an election by one side's partisans - sure helps in November!  

The rules also allow state parties wide latitude in how they conduct their election. Some chose primaries, some chose caucuses.  Not everyone likes caucuses, but so what?  Nebraska does.  

And what the hell? Why are you whining about Nebraska: you could have picked New Hampshire or Nevada.  (Or any of the states where Obama out-organized Clinton.  She lost Maine.)

Go ahead and get involved in Democratic party politics and push for an end to caucus politics -- that's your prerogative.  Argue with Iowans and New Hampshireans, go on the Daily Show to rail against them, pen a bestseller about the injustice of caucuses -- fine. But I suspect that's not the cause that's near and dear to your heart...

There is a big difference between a Primary and an Election.  When it is simply Republican vs. Democrat the choice is pretty clear.  It doesn't take a lot of information to make a fairly informed decision and the end result is a final result.  Not so with a Primary.  The end result is the beginning of the election process.  Policy differences are more nuanced requiring a more informed voter.  GOTV, campaign staff and structure are all key elements to be factored in as to who will be the best choice.  The argument for caucuses is that the Primary elections give a pronounced edge to the incumbent and best known of the candidates who may not be the best qualified candidate to run in the fall.  This gets even worse in the Primaries in the front of the schedule which have early voting, something which allows voters to pick before the candidates have even had time to campaign and make there pitch to voters.  If we had a winner-take-all Primaries only system, no doubt Clinton would have won easily and early and her weakness in campaign staff and organization would not have been exposed until it was too late.  We would have had Mark Penn charting the electoral map for her.  There is a reason some states decided on a caucus system.  

The question is whether we change and what is the best system for picking the best candidate.  It used to be that this stie was a Progressive democrat site with a strong role in the netroots movement.  That orientation skewers heavily toward Obama because of his commitment to a more grassroots style of politics and organizing.  Effectively using an activist internet-savvy base, he has radically changed the way campaigns are financed and put some backbone in campaign finance reform.  These are all good things which supporters of both candidates should be in favor of.  There is something to say for the caucus system which relies on, builds, and trains a grassroots style organization in service of the general election.  There is a certain built-in unfairness to them concerning the time restriction, but rather than scraping them entirely perhaps we should search for solutions to that problem instead of giving up on them.  The work Obama has done in the caucus states will pay great dividends in the fall.  It's something to consider.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Yes caucuses suck. For so many good reasons not even mentioned. They should be eliminated and replaced with a national primary where the popular vote winner is the nominee. No games. No SDs.

Next time, that is. There's no way to rewrite the rules that this campaign was conducted by now. So I really don't see the point of this diary since it doesn't even offer any remedy for the future. It's just complaining about a result the writer doesn't like.

it is how about changing it. This continuing theme that caucuses are unfair is an issue that keeps coming up. If its so unfair why not make a grassroots efforts to have each state that holds caucuses to change to a primary. I am now living in Minnesota and suggested that to the local party chair. He said he had also tried to change it to a primary but various party leaders but they were not receptive. My guess is that alot of other states would have changed it if they wanted to but the desire is not there. You guys are welcome to try but whining about how unfair it is to your candidate is just a "sore loser" argument. Just like me arguing that the demographics in W. Virginia made it impossible for him to win.

Otherwise this is a "sore loser" complaint. The  system was set up to choose a nominee. My first choice was Edwards he lost. Quite frankly Hillary was always way down at the bottom of my list. After a living a long time in the South I realized that she rallies the Republican base. I can't prove it but I am positive she will rally the Republican base more than Obama will. It's a gut feeling from over 30 years of living in the South.

To get back to my point Hillary and all the candidates had the same rules. Hillary suffered from negative press coverage but she benefitted more than any other candidate by having most of the Washington establishment in the Clinton's pocket. Edwards who was the most electable in the GE was constantly having to fight the big money donors, the establishment the Clinton machine. It sucks but he played by the established rules and he lost just like Biden, Dodd, Richardson etc...
Now Hillary wants to change the rules for Mi and Fl . She wants to "look" at the popular vote she wants a "pause" while she continues to poison the well for Obama. Yes she has poisoned it by legitimizing the white latent racism in the last remaining contests. I don't think she is  a racist I think she is a savvy politician exploiting an issue to win. Its troubling because it damages our nominee and she is okay with the collateral damage.

So as the end approaches and the bitterness continues. Keep in mind that while this last ditch effort has some benefits its got some pretty large negatives. This site proves that the longer this process continues the more the attitudes are hardening for or against the nominee of the party whether its Obama or Hillary manages the upset.

And for all the talk about the closeness of the race keep in mind that yet again that does not matter. Because the way our system works the person  with the most votes not the two closest gets the office.  So even if those W. Virginia don't want to vote for Obama in November that does not matter because what matters is that he will have gotten the nomination by the rules established by the party and put together the necessary wins and superdelegates to represent the party in November.

Caucuses are often complicated processes that favor party activists at the exclusion of "Jane and Jo Normal Voter".  I say this from the experience my family had in the Colorado Caucuses.  They took 2 hours and were big public spectacles.  My mom and sis said they would "never do it again".  There you go.
This is why Democrats LOSE General Elections.  We anoint a candidate based on the results of these small, activist-based caucuses- and often wind up with someone who does not appeal to the masses.  I'm not saying Obama is going to be that person- but it is a fact that Hillary wins most of the Primaries, and he wins most of the Caucuses.  Nebraska, Washington and Texas are prime examples.  When everyone votes- Hillary either wins or gets A LOT closer to Obama.  Take what you want from that- but those are the facts.

The Clinton campaign knew (or should have) known the rules of the process beforehand.  They got out organized and got their butts kicked in the caucus states, that's their own fault.  No use crying over spilt milk now.  I'm all for getting rid of caucuses, but given how bad the Clinton campaign was in spite of all of its institutional advantages, I wouldn't want her running the country.

your last paragraph is a needles and meaningless jab at Obama. I agree that the rules of caucuses suck, most Obama supporters agree with this statement.

However, your last paragraph where you accuse him of "gaming the system," is absurd. We have had caucuses as part of the primary system pretty much forever so you can't fault Obama's campaign for their existence and you certainly can't fault Obama's campaign for developing a strategy that allowed them to over-perform in the caucus states. It was a smart strategic decision. The idea that one of our campaigns making smart strategic decisions is somehow to be frowned upon is patently absurd.

Wonderful citation of the rules; but there's not even a hint of any violation that so many seem eager to jump on.

2.A requires the process to be open to all.  No problem; it unquestionably was.

3.A and 3.B impose scheduling rules.  That's all.  No process rules, just scheduling; and there is absolutely no evidence presented in this diary that indicates that the lower participation in the caucus was due to the scheduling.  

Caucus numbers were smaller; no disagreement.  The important question is why were they smaller?  Was it a scheduling issue?  Were caucuses scheduled non-uniformly or in such a manner as to limit participation?  No, they were not; and consequently the entire hypothesis of this diary is moot.  

Lower participation has many causes.  Unless it's conclusively the result of scheduling, the Rules 3.A & 3.B argument is worthless on its face.

"Unofficial" primary means just that, unofficial.

If you tell voters that a primary wont count, it depresses turnout.

You can't make any real observations based upon something that is unofficial.

end of.

Yeah and suggesting a change of rules in the middle of the game isn't "gaming the process." Save this debate for after the primary.

Washington State.

Now I know what the 20,000 screaming Obama-maniacs would say. They'd say that rules are rules and Sen. Obama won the Nebraska caucuses.

you sound pretty hard up, still.

I suppose once your credibility is lost, you retort to crazy talk, nothing really makes sense, you start being accusatory without real reason and you spin out of control.

must really suck to be you right now. I suggest you replace yourself with Bowers.

MyDD: Where logic goes to die.

Just because more people voted does not make it more democratic.

It is far easier to vote in a primary, we know that. But the point is that everyone should be able to vote, not that we try to have as many people vote as possible.

If we handed out ballots on the street or went to people's homes to have them fill out ballots we could get a lot more people to vote and it would be less democratic.

I for one think the dedication and spirit involved in caucuses is exactly what democracy is about. I want to encourage people to attend, and I think there ought to be changes that allow for people to be able to who ordinarily can't (absentee ballots for those out of state, mandatory time off work, etc.).

But for those people who vote in a primary because its easier but don't want to  give up enough time for a caucus, I really don't think it should matter. If we are choosing a nominee we are supposed to be picking the strongest candidate, and that could mean who has the most dedicated supporters.

The fact that this is on the front page, and there is no discussion over how undemocratic superdelegates are (for the record, i don't think they are, though their number should be decreased) is laughable.

This is not about discussion, this is just about wanting Hillary Clinton as the nominee and the only way to do that now is to try to undermine the whole process.

sour grapes sore loser whining diary.  My comment may seem insulting but it is by no means lower than the level of intelligence or discourse contained within the diary.

Talk about voter disenfranchisement!!!

Then all caucuses violate their spirit.  And so do all primary elections not held on Saturdays.

I don't like caucuses, but that's what we've got in WA so I went.  I also don't like fake primaries that I don't vote in but which people use to 'prove' that my participation in the caucus was 'unfair' to their candidate.  I also don't like open primaries, since the whole concept of a primary is to have that party's adherents choose it's own nominee, but I'm very much in the minority on that one here in WA.

What I don't like the most, however, is whining, and trying to change the rules after they've been agreed upon.  The rules suck, yes.  It would certainly be easier for all of us to compare apples to oranges, Washington to New Hampshire, whatever, if we were all operating under the same system - closed primary, open primary, caucus, primacaucus, whatever.  

But we aren't.  

And contrary to a fair bit of the rhetoric I hear, all the presidential candidates had an equal opportunity to design a strategy that worked WITHIN THE AGREED UPON SYSTEM.  

They both had disadvantages - Obama came into the race with a huge name-id disadvantage, with the media practically coronating Hillary in 2007, and with Hillary having locked in many of the traditional fundraising avenues and a fair number of superdelegates before anyone started voting.

Hillary came in with a fair bit of overconfidence, a deep loathing among long-time Clinton-haters, and a very loyal but unimaginative campaign team.

Both teams knew the rules many many months in advance.  One team used the rules to their advantage, and the other spent the last 3 months complaining about how unfair the rules are, and devising scenarios in which under other rules they would have won.

Yes, caucuses are unfair.  And so are open primaries.  And so is having 100% name-id going into a race.  And so is being able to give a great speech.  

It's a race.  You take your advantages and try to win with them, and take your disadvantages and try to minimize them.  You don't bitch about how your opponents advantages are unfair, and your own advantages don't exist.

Here's how your diary reads to me:
blah, blah, blah, blah, "gaming the system".

If the system were different from the outset, we would have "gamed" that too.  You cannot speculate that HRC does better under different rules, because a campaign's goal is to understand the rules and devise a game plan to win by those rules.
Unfortunately for you, your candidate's campaign failed to appreciate the strength of Obama's support, and failed to understand the playing field.

Don't blame Obama.  If you can't cook with the ingeredients you have, get out of the kitchen.

States decide how to allocate their delegates, whether via primary or caucus.

Period.

Don't like it?  Get the folks in Nebraska to change the rules for next time.