I haven't heard any chatter about this, and after the debacle in Nevada there should'v been something.

Well, it's totally legal and according to the rules of the party. I've never seen such a disparity between caucus night and county assembly night, though. Five points is a big deal. Of course, if it isn't repeated in other counties you won't even notice in the final results.

It's entirely kosher, unfortunately.  At my caucus, they discussed that those elected to the county convention do not necessarily have to vote for the candidate they caucused for.

Another Clinton supporter here who agrees that this whole thing is ridiculous.

Hope we have a National Primary in 2012!

"I'm a Clinton supporter, but what you describe doesn't sound kosher."

I'm also a Clinton supporter, and my initial reaction was that this isn't fair, and something should be done about it, but I am reflecting on how Clinton won the Texas primary, but lost several percentage points in the caucuses even though she clearly won the state, so perhaps a small transfer of delegates actually compensates somewhat for the undemocratic methods of the caucuses in this case. I can easily see it getting out of hand, though, and going in either direction to create an unfair outcome.

States that do not have the funds to hold primaries should be entitled to federal assistence for that purpose. I mean, if democracy is actually important to the US...?

While I agree the caucus system and many aspects of our primary are FUBAR, it's perfectly kosher for this to happen.  Part of the system.

Myself?  I'd prefer a straight primary ballot, with everybody given sufficient time during voting day to go to the polls.   Caucuses are fairly anti-democratic and make it too hard for far too many people to express their wishes.

That's where I am doubtful.   In Nevada, Obama's supporters really showed up.  The campaign, or movement, or whatever you wan to call it.. is incredibly organized at the ground level.  Look at what happened in Texas-  Obama won the battle of the early vote by around 10%.   He won the caucuses resoundingly.  He had supporters on the ground before he had any staffers there.  This is the power of the internet mixed with a grassroots organization headed by a former community organizer- America turns into one giant community.

I think you'll be seeing the true miracle of the Obama-machine when it registers people in Pennsylvania.  Yeah, that's right- voter registration in Pennsylvania goes on until March 24th.  We're growing this party.  And in November, we are going to sweep across the United States of America and take it f'ing back on every level except the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court, unfortunately, will take longer.

The Democratic party can't have that. How would they ever get a Dukakis or a Kerry nominated?

As I've said earlier, it all comes down to money.. caucuses are way cheaper.  Cheaper than mail-in ballots, and a lot less prone to fraud.

As I've said earlier, it all comes down to money.. caucuses are way cheaper.  Cheaper than mail-in ballots, and a lot less prone to fraud.

No, she's just playing by the rules.

I swear. How many people support Obama that do not know what the fuck they are talking about?

And the majority of Texas voters would agree with you 100%.  My caucus was so full of fraud that anyone could have signed those sheets.  They did not even check our voter cards!  I think the Texas caucus will be in legal limbo right up to the convention in Denver from what I am hearing.  The lawyers are just waiting to take action after examining the paperwork and investigating the reports of fraud!  The Democratic party officials are embarrassed by what occurred last Tuesday night in the caucuses here.

We can only pray!

...and then John McCain wins 43 states as people disgusted with the process stay home.

No matter who you back in this race, you have to worry. We have seen that initial caucus states do not reflect the popular vote. Now this. It is really screwed up.

I will say, Obama supporters have pointed out his caucus success is a signal of better organizational strength, not transient rock star appeal. If this is a general trend I guess they are wrong. Hillary may have deeper lasting support.

If you think that's a useful metric, let me give you another one.  If you count states won by the electoral votes each possesses, Clinton is winning, 219 to 196.