who cares if he didn't win the big states, what does that have to do with this? he's leading the popular vote, what's your point?
Did you read the beginning of this post? This was my first Texas Democratic primary that I voted in. I voted for Clinton for the FIRST time this year.
So you went to the caucus somewhat supporting Hillary and left all fired up in support of her. Looks like they won you over - and turned you into a stooge.
In the end, he can't close the deal on the American Public. Neither candidate will and it will be up to the Superdelegates to pick the Democratic Nominee. By the way, so much for Obama's talk of change and hope. He's starting to act like an Illinois Politician. So much for a clean and positive campaign. He's just like ALL THE REST.
No...On the contrary... I am already having second thoughts about my vote and may change in the general election to McCain. So No..they haven't won me over. I"ll be monitoring both candidates and listening to them.
I guess you don't know much about the populations of Illinois, Georgia, Wisconsin, CT, etc. And even your roll eyes doesn't mean that it anyway is evidence supporting your conspiracy theory.
I was born in Chicago and have family there so yea I do know about Illinois. Obama should've and won Illinois.
And it's amazing that you keep failing to see that I'm not saying the caucus system is good, or better than the electoral college system, or that the electoral college system is bad. My point is you were not complaining when these other flawed systems got your man elected...right??? Go ahead...say the electoral system is better, but it is still flawed as to where it can allow a man to get elected when the majority of the country doesn't want him to be. Yeah, it rarely happens but it can happen. The point is more folks still voted against Bush but due to the system in place, he won...similar to what happens when you caucus, right? You are trying to say one system isn't as screwed as the other, or that the fraud and disenfranchisement had nothing to do with the system. I could give a damn about the system. Were you concerned that it happened in 2000 is my question? Did you care about the fraud and disenfranchisement period in 2000? TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR YOU...YOU BASHED A SYSTEM FOR NOT REFLECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WHEN BUSH WON WHEN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (MAJORITY OF US CITIZENS THAT VOTED) TOLD HIM TO GO AWAY. THE POINT IS NOT THAT THE CAUCUS SYSTEM IS BETTER THAN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ONE. THE POINT IS YOU SOUND HYPOCRITICAL CONDEMNING A SYSTEM FOR NOT REFLECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHEN THATS HOW YOUR MAN GOT ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And you ask what my education level is.......
Rocket Rich NYC- I am still awaiting your answer to these questions. That is really great that the problems that occurred in your precinct are being investigated, but that does not mean whatsoever that similar tactics were not used in other precincts by Hillary supporters. I am trying to see where exactly you are misunderstanding things. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt about you not having your mind made up about Obama before the caucus, but you are not helping your case at all.
Icehouse, you just simply are in over your head here. Let me repeat myself again for your benefit, although I will caution you that I quickly lose patience when having to explain things to people on the mental junior varsity. 1) The electoral college system represents the will of the people (popular vote) within the state. The caucus does not -- see Texas on Tuesday night. Please read this three times before responding about 2000, when you erroneously compare the nationwide popular vote with the nationwide electoral votes. That's a flawed comparison. General election campaigns are run to maximize electoral votes. Were that not the case, no candidate would leave the urban areas. If you win the popular vote within Texas, you receive Texas' electoral votes. It's that simple. In the caucus system, that correlation is destroyed, making it a flawed system. 2) The electoral system isn't what you were complaining about in 2000, it was fraud, hanging Chads, voting for Nader, etc. That has nothing to do with the electoral college system. So quit saying it does, or that the electoral college system is flawed -- because it isn't flawed. 3) The caucus system inherenty lends itself to voter intimidation and corruption, as you lack privacy and are susceptible to arcane rules and personal interactions. The electoral college system does not inherently open itself up to these problems. Again your comparison is invalid. I will personally pay you $50 if you can prove to me that you have a college education. My money is safe.
To answer your question, I do think Obama's camp was giving orders as it was documented on his own website to sign people up for the caucus and even had sample sheets for reference. Also, read my post in the obama loves America thread where I cite sources from the Chicago tribune that documented how he became an Illinois state rep. He manipulated the system and had his opponents removed from the ballot. Read it. Its very enlightening. I give it to Obama. He knows how to manipulate the system to make it look legit. I just learned about this today. Now I'm even more convinced that Obama is just a shady lawyer that became just like all the other politicians. Now you will see re south side Chicago politician come out from him. It's already being exposed. Now will everyone stop making him the savior of politics. He's just a regular shady politician like all the rest of them.
Signing people up for a caucus has nothing to do with telling them toe behave inappropriately. Yeah Obama's dirty caucus tactics are being exposed just like that fake moon landing.
You answered one of my questions. To which springs up a whole other load of questions. Do you think its feasible that the Obama campaign contacted the voters in specific precincts, such as yours, and gave them these orders? And how do you suppose he did this? If I am reading you right, you are suggesting it was through his website. And again, do you think there wasn't any voter intimidation and overall aggressiveness and domination of the caucus by Hillary supporters in other precincts where she was heavily favored? I'm trying to understand your reasoning, but I'm just not getting it.
These are the same tactics he employed in Illinois. He knows his supporters are gonna be uneducated about the caucus and is counting on it so he won't be blamed for it. That's why you had people signing up caucus sheets before the doors even opened. That's why he had people do whatever they wanted. He gave them enough instructions to get the effect he wanted. Chaos at the caucus.
Also somebody from Obama's camp was the one adamantly trying to force all 17 delegates to be theirs. That had to come from somewhere as well as telling them to control both chair and secretary positions. That had to come from some conference call or direction. Unless you believe of was some ignorant obama supporter acting on his own. Then why did it happen elsewhere in all the other precincts. So that means either they are all dumb or all acting on their own. So which is it?
The same happened in my precinct. (Obama supporters being appointed to both positions.) But there was a vote on the floor to appoint those people. The first one to nominate someone was from the Clinton camp. So one of my neighbors, who was sitting a few tables from me, nominated someone that supported Obama, then proceeded to tell everyone to vote for the Obama supporter. And of course the Hillary supporter urged everyone to vote for their nominee. That is how I witnessed it in my own precinct so why is it impossible for the same to have happened in yours and countless others? Yes it came from somewhere. It came from the people sitting there in that room in those precincts heavily favoring Obama imposing their majority on the caucus. That many Texans that participated were ignorant and unaware of the rules and the inner workings of a caucus is a VAST understatement. There were plenty of "ignorant" people at the caucuses, but I can assure you not all of them were Obama supporters. EDIT: Also, this is the third time that I will ask, because I feel that you are dodging it because it will show your flawed logic. Do you think there wasn't any voter intimidation and overall aggressiveness and domination of the caucus by Hillary supporters in other precincts where she was heavily favored? And I disregarded your first post because the article you posted talked about him legally having candidates removed from the ticket because of irregularities with their petitions, and is not "the same tactic" as his campaign encouraging people to break the law wrt the caucus system as you are alleging.
