Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

This diary is going to be short. I'm just going to put out the facts and let you take it from there.

Lets take a look at the Washington and Texas elections.

Washington

Turnout was estimated to be about a quarter million in the Washington caucus or about 16% of Kerry voters. Obama won the state by 37 points.

Barack Obama: 68%
Hillary Clinton: 31%

Almost 700,000 people voted in the Washington primary, or about 46% of Kerry voters, yet no delegates were awarded. Obama's margin was shaved to just 5 points when turnout was increased.

Barack Obama: (354,112) 51%
Hillary Clinton: (315,744) 46%
John Edwards: (11,892) 2%
Dennis Kucinich: (4,021) 1%

Texas

In Texas, 2.8 million people voted in the primary, almost as much people that voted for Kerry in the 2004 general election (99%). Clinton was able to secure a 4-point win over Obama and a 126 delegates were distributed using the results.

Hillary Clinton: (1,459,814) 51%
Barack Obama: (1,358,785) 47%

In the caucus portion of the Texas election, over one million voters, who already voted in the primary, gave Obama a 12-point victory over Clinton. In other words, one million people voted twice on the same day.

Barack Obama: 56%
Hillary Clinton: 44%

Now, before people start talking about Bill Clinton and the TX caucus, realize this, Bill Clinton is not running for President. Bill Clinton is not Hillary Clinton and I don't care what Bill Clinton did regarding the Texas caucus.

My proposal? Clinton should appeal the TX and WA caucuses and fight for the state's respective primary results to dictate the delegate allocation.

Discuss

Tags: Barack Obama, Based on his sig a supporter of Alan Keyes, caucus, changing the rules, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Primary, texas, Washington (all tags)

Comments

69 Comments

Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I would agree with this if Clinton got into a time machine, traveled back two years, and changed the system before it suddenly didn't work out to her advantage.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Apparently the diarist can't handle the truth.

by mefck 2008-04-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Actually, I trolled rated him because that is not the point of this diary. The point of this diary is to show how unfair caucuses are.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

That still doesn't deserve a troll rating.

And how does this show how unfair caucuses are?  More or less participation doesn't necessarily equal fairness.

by mefck 2008-04-23 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Ignore the diarist.  He/she has been TR-ing against the site's rules all day.  

by MikeyB 2008-04-23 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Well, I'm truly sorry that your analysis revealed an unintended side of your argument.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

If you have to explain the point of your diary by defending your TR-ing someone, then maybe you shouldn't make your diaries so short.  If you don't have the time to explain your points, then don't post. Period.

by MikeyB 2008-04-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Hmmm challenge the state because she doesn't like how they chose to allocate their delegates?

ok, I think that would go well for her. I agree she should do it.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

And the troll rating was for what, exactly?  How many of the rules do you want to be changed retroactively?  You do know that every single candidate would have had a different strategy if suddenly caucus totals didn't count, do you not?

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 03:52PM | 0 recs
Appeal based on what?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Appeal based on what?

The the caucuses disenfranchises various groups of voters and as a way to compensate, the DNC should count the TX and WA primaries ONLY.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Appeal based on what?

So you want to change the rules after the elections were held?

Think about that for a minute.  

by mefck 2008-04-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Appeal based on what?

yea im sure that would go over well

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
But those were the rules.

You're not asking for an appeal. Your asking for a post facto rule change to benefit the losing candidate. Honestly, that's just sad.  

by heresjohnny 2008-04-23 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

there is nothing to discuss, obama won by the rules that were made

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Obama won the caucuses by the rules, the same way that George W. Bush won the presidency according to the rules.

by alvic63 2008-04-23 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Well that's not true.

by mefck 2008-04-23 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

What I don't understand is that Obama supporters tell me I'm not a Democrat because I can think. When I say caucuses are unfair and offer a way to INCLUDE MORE people into the process for two states they say NO. Who is not the Democrat now?

You people sicken me.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

im not saying you're not a democrat, im saying your "appeal after the fact" notion is stupid

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

You could have made the point about the "unfairness" of the caucuses without talking about appeals. We know what you are after. It ain't gonna happen.

by hania 2008-04-23 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Yes, I am after the inclusion of as many people as possible in this process. Hey, Obama should appeal the WA caucus and ask for the primary to be counted instead. More people means a better representation of the electorate.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Appeal on what grounds? These are the rules agreed upon. Period.

You can make the case for changing the rules in the future but you cannot, and you will not be allowed to, change the rules after the fact. Man, this place is turning into a huge kindergarten.

BTW, you are not fooling anybody you care about participation. Show me a diary of yours before January that argues the point. You only care about Clinton winning. It is time we cut the BS.

by hania 2008-04-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
You are a sickening troll

by hania 2008-04-23 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I don't get the anger over the caucus, even though I think they should be done away with in the future.  Both candidates came in knowing what needed to be done.  Clinton wasn't nearly as successful b/c she didn't organize.  It's not some conspiracy, she just didn't expect to have to do much more than the big states.  It's not like the rules were changed on her at the last minute.  Both had an equal opportunity.

BTW, part of Hillary's appeal to Democrats is Bill.  They come as a duo.  There is no way of not associating the two.

by venavena 2008-04-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

My God, the comments here are amazing. The fact that people are actually saying 700,000 votes are worthless, but we will happily take 250,000, this is just sad. We call ourselves Democrats?

This is not about rules people. This is about the American people and our right to vote. It is about our right to be heard. It is about include as much people in the process as possible. Considering what Obama has been able to do this cycle, I would think is supporters will support counting at least the Washington primary if not counting the TX and WA only. Instead you wave around "rules" and say it is unfair. You call bull.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

And where have you been for the last few decades that this system has been in place?  Forgive me if I don't believe what you're selling.

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I was 16 when I followed the 2004 primary and I was against caucuses then and I am against them today. I have always been against caucuses. This is nothing new. Would the switch benefit Clinton. Sure, but if Obama supporters are so sure Obama will be our nominee, then they should no be up in arms saying 700,000 people are worthless but we will take 250,000.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Neither do I.

by venavena 2008-04-23 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

this isnt 'nam rj, this is america, we are a country based on rules. whether or not caucuses are more or less "democratic" is irrelevant. they are very much a part of the system and as such they have to be counted, until the rules are changed any complaint is without merit

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

"God damn you aaaa05! You f**in' ahole! Everything's a f*in' travesty with you, man! And what was all that sh*t about Vietnam? What the f*, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the f** are you talking about!?"

That's such a great movie.  I laughed when I saw your reference.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

hania rated one of my comments a zero, and since a select few cannot see 0-rated comments and I would like everyone to read my comments, I will post it again.

-----

What I don't understand is that Obama supporters tell me I'm not a Democrat because I can think. When I say caucuses are unfair and offer a way to INCLUDE MORE people into the process for two states they say NO. Who is not the Democrat now?

You people sicken me.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

If you want to get rid of caucuses in Texas, more power to you.  Seriously.  What everyone here is saying is that you don't get to change the rules in the middle of a freakin' primary.  The time to complain about the unfairness of the process was LOOONG before the caucuses actually happened.

People that say that may sicken you, but it's a fact.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
DNC Rules (13.H)
For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the non-binding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection
process and is considered detrimental. State parties must take steps to educate the public that a
non-binding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential
candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.

by John DE 2008-04-23 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: DNC Rules (13.H)

What is your point? Is your point that 700,000 people should not matter while 250,000 should decide the delegate allocation?

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Answer me this, if you had the opportunity to include more people in a process where the voice of the people mattered, wouldn't you do it? We have the opportunity to do that in one state and that is Washington state. Why are people against including more people in the process? Obama won the caucus, so what? He won the primary too, he will still get more delegates than Clinton.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

because your disenfranchising those voters who knew the primary didnt mean shit and didnt vote..you cant change things after they happened, if the caucus wasnt a part of the process than obama would have used his resources to focus on the primary. your reasoning is ridiculous

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

68% of those caucus goers were Obama supporters. Something tells me most of them voted in the primary. I just can't believe that Democrats are saying we should not include more people in the process.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Who is this "Something" person you're talking about.  I think he's lying to you again.

by reggie23 2008-04-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

caucuses do not reflect the popular vote period.

by darlene25 2008-04-23 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Are you just figuring this out?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-04-23 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus
Ah, but they do! If you look at the only four major TX counties that were orderly enough to report most of their caucus results, the popular vote mirrored the caucus results.


Only in counties that were out of control, as in most caucus counties in the nation, did the two numbers diverged severely.


TX is statistical proof that caucuses do not represent the will of the voters.


But why, specifically? Using Bexar, Travis and El Paso counties, we saw a large number of illegal activity and intimidation. One case happened to one of my precinct captains while I was on the phone with her.


We saw 2000 complaints, and wrote hundreds of affidavits. Here's a glimpse of early reports. This list is mild. The witnesses I interviewed would make the blood rush from your face.


I'd be happy to answer any questions about what I know.

BTW, I do not happen to agree that caucuses should be appealed. To do so is to admit that they are part of a legitimate system. They are not. Even when their results were controlled and credible, we caught too many cases of attempted fraud.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

An appeal is out of the question, but the facts show some empirical evidence caucus "delegate" counts are not representative of the popular vote and do not necessarily produce a result truly indicative of one candidate's level of support.  For example, one NV caucus I observed was 2-1 Obama (only 3 people) - 67%/33% (66.67%/33.33% using the Orange rounding rules), yet one delegate was awarded to Obama - 100%/0%.  In another, Edwards had people, but not enough to meet the 15% threshhold, thus he ended up with Zero delegates.  A third in the same building had over 300 attendees, but 11 delegates - 100x the number of people attended than in the 3-person precinct, but only 11x the number of delegates.  Democratic?  I won't ponder because those are the rules - respresentative?  No.

by alamedadem 2008-04-23 04:16PM | 0 recs
Welcome to Representative Government

Now you know what California feels like.  My vote counts for about .75 whereas someone from say, North Dakota counts for 1.25.  This is what you get when the amount of reps equals your Senators plus your representatives (as in the General Election).

by Sychotic1 2008-04-23 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Who do you "appeal" to?

by poserM 2008-04-23 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

DNC. There will be a whole process to go through. The outcome will be in their hands, but the intentions are good: to include more people in the process.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I really don't believe what I am reading. I cannot believe people think this way. I cannot believe we do not want to include more people in the process. I simply cannot believe people do not care about Democracy. It truly saddens me.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

i really cant believe you dont see how fuckin ridiculous your diary is

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

What is ridiculous? That I care about Democracy? That I care about the voters? That I care about the voice of the people? That I want more people to be included in the process?

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:28PM | 0 recs
You don't care about the people

You only care about winning.

by hania 2008-04-23 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

its ridiculous that you want to change the rules of the process after they happened. i understand the thrust of your argument, but it is a moot point. its over, done with. your suggestion of an appeal is ridiculous and doesnt make any sense. if the rules were changed at the very beginning, fine, but they werent and caucuses count. both candidates knew what to expect going in and one did better.

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

People arguing against you are not doing so on the basis of your democratic argument; they're arguing against your after-the-fact desire to do something about it now via an appeal.  You can't change the rules once the game has been played.

by MikeyB 2008-04-23 04:32PM | 0 recs
Stupid diary.

An "appeal" implies that there is a legal or bylaws-based argument to be made here. There isn't. You just don't like the results.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Stupid diary.

The caucus disenfranchised thousands of people and as a way to compensate, use the primary to allocate delegates.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Stupid diary.

You should really stop.  Don't you see that this is a sour grapes argument?  Has anyone backed you up on this yet?

by MikeyB 2008-04-23 04:34PM | 0 recs
For once, he is partially right,

There is no legal process to fix this. In TX, in cases of outright fraud, people do not go to jail, no matter how strong the evidence. The most one could do was take evidence to the county credentials committee to correct a delegate count - and a correction might be made if you have a majority on the committee. It's not a credible legal process.

by Pacific John 2008-04-23 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Stupid diary.

You troll-rated another post?

A general question to anyone who can answer, is there a way to get rid of these posters who continually do this without merit?

by venavena 2008-04-23 04:40PM | 0 recs
Once again...

...this is a stupid diary, and here's why: the term "appeal" means something. You're contesting a given fact based on whichever law or set of other guidelines governs that something. All you're showing here is that you feel something to be unfair, not that the imputed unfairness should be remedied because of a rules violation which doesn't exist.

You also don't seem to know that you can't "appeal" to the DNC, because the states govern their primaries.

Not just a stupid diary, bit worthless enough to increase the sum total of stupid in the world.

by MBNYC 2008-04-23 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I see Obama supporters are out in force attacking me because for some reason they don't want more people included in the process. After all their candidate has done this cycle. That amazes me. I'm not going to win this battle but at least I know I stand up for Democracy and the American people. I'm not going to comment in this diary anymore.

by RJEvans 2008-04-23 04:31PM | 0 recs
no you are getting arguments

about how the rules should not be changed in the middle of the election

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

This is really, really dumb.

by Skaje 2008-04-23 04:32PM | 0 recs
hey

I say Obama needs to appeal in every state where her husbands name got her the local dem machine to help in her ground game.

Let think of it as passing a written oh on lets say physics exam.

Obama come by himself. And Hillary comes with her husband the widely know physicist, who sits behind her and helps.

You think this is a dumb idea? Well that how I feel about your "change the rules in mid election" diary.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-23 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I join in the call for Hillary to appeal the Texas and Washington caucuses.  I think that she should spend millions - whatever it takes - to pursue this worthy and assuredly fruitful path to victory.  She should make it the focus of her strategy going forward.  GO HILLS!!!

by SpideyDem 2008-04-23 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Rules is rules.

It can and should be a consideration among the super delegates; however, those delegates were selected under state party rules approved by the national party.

The fact that Obama blindsided Clinton in the caucuses is one of the greatest organizational coups of the Obama campaign.  Kudos!  And I am a Clinton supporter.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-23 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

finally, some reasoning, thank you johnny

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

from a clinton supporter that is, everyone else outside of rj has been reasonable

by aaaa05 2008-04-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

Judas. LOL.

by venavena 2008-04-23 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

What a LOVELY comment.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-23 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I know that a few others have already said as much, but you really can't change the rules after the relevant event has occured. Everyone involved--the candidates and the voters--would have behaved differently had different rules been in place (I say the same about FL and MI).

I realize that you have legitimate concerns about the caucus process and the extent to which their results reflect the will of a broader electorate, however there are also matters regarding procedural justice to consider. And, I think the unfairness associated with post facto rule changes clearly overrides the perceived problems with caucuses (primarily because those problems could have easily been addressed before the nomination process began).

First, since these are procedures that the national and state parties, along with the candidates, freely and voluntarily accepted well before the nomination process, one could argue that the candidates have waived any right to challenge the rules once the nomination process is underway (and even moreso after the caucus was held). Caucuses are not a recent invention, so the affected parties (including Clinton) were well aware of the issues that you're addressing. The time to raise these challenges would be before the candidates and voters proceeded in reliance upon the rules of the game.

And, unfortunately, many of Clinton's arguments seek some kind of amendment to previously accepted rules. For example, it was made apparent to the candidates and voters that Michigan and Florida contests would essentially be a beauty contest or straw poll. As a result, Obama didn't campaign, and some voters certainly abstained or voted in the republican primary rather than cast a meaningless vote in the dem primary. Not surprisingly, these were almost the only two states where turnout did not exceed republican turnout. This tends to confirm that some voters abstained or crossed-over due to their justifiable perception that the contest was meaningless.

For the record, though, I'm much more sympathetic to Florida because the movement of their primary's date was pushed by the republican legislature and governor. I have personally supported the seating of Florida's delegation as is so long as Michigan's delegates are split 50/50.

I would just add, in conclusion, that all these contests fall short of the democratic ideals to which we aspire in elections for public office, primarily because this is a nomination process and not an actual public election. The party approaches the design of the nomination process  with many objectives that may conflict with ideal democratic participation and representation. For one thing, we don't have a national primary in which everyone votes according to the same rules. Rather, it is a series of state contests, each with unique rules. And each states decides who should be able to participate? Just dems, or should we allow indies--or, additionally, republicans. Some states, like my state of SC, do not require party affiliation to vote in the primary because, well, we don't actual have party registration. We couldn't have closed primaries without changing our entire system of registration. Similarly, states differ in terms of primary v. caucus, whether early voting is allowed, whether the primary is mail-only, whether voting machines are utilized, etc.

by DPW 2008-04-23 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Should Appeal TX and WA Caucus

I am a Raiders fan . . . and I HATED the "tuck rule" so I think my Raiders should be awarded the Super Bowl trophy from the Patriots that year.

by Veteran75 2008-04-23 05:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads