Washington's voting is really screwed up, though beneficial to Obama. They have both a primary (in 10 days) and a caucus. On the GOP side, half the delegates are determined at each. On the Dem side, all the delegates are decided by the caucus. The primary has ZERO impact on anything. SurveyUSA did a poll yesterday - it showed Obama up 50-45, within the margin of error. However, amongst caucus-goers, Obama led 66-33. Basically, Obama's supporters were better organized or more excited. Apparently I was very, very wrong about the fact that caucuses really, really benefit Obama. I thought it was overdone, but with 70+ delegates, the caucus format may end up giving him a net gain of about 20 more delegates than he would have in a primary in the same state.
Caucuses are dumb and should be against the law. Just my opinion, but they are an inferior form of democracy. All delegates should be selected by secret-ballot. Obama's candidacy has an unfair advantage.
I tend to agree. Before this election cycle, I had no idea what a caucus even entailed. Apparently, there are two reasons that states do caucuses instead of primaries: 1. Cost - apparently, it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper to run a caucus than a primary. Since these things are funded by the state parties (as opposed to the state itself), it's why a lot of smaller states go with caucuses. That doesn't explain WA running both though (the state is funding the primary for whatever reason). 2. To reward dedication - this is sketchy to me, but it's similar to the idea of primaries being closed to independents in order to give more influence to the "party faithful". In this case, it's to give more weight to people who are willing to spend a few hours as opposed to just voting. It seems to me that you'd want primaries open to independents to encourage more people to jon and participate in your party. A closed caucus seems like the worst combo. Seems kind of silly and a big hassle to me, personally. A primary is so much easier logistically and common-sense wise. Texas does something similar, with a primary during the day that results in part of the delegate selection, and a caucus at night that results in the other part. What is the point?
no No NO! I just don't like people being coerced on voting day immediately before voting. I feel very strongly about this to the point it makes me angry. When voting day comes, open the polls, get out of people's way and let them go vote without any pressure at all!
We had a topic a few weeks back where people thought that voters should have to take a basic competency test before voting. I think the caucus system is basically the real-life version of that. It's gets rid of all the people least interested and least informed, and encourages participation by those who are really interested and dedicated and following things more closely. While a cool concept, I don't think its ultimately good for democracy. I think you want to get as many people involved as possible, and caucuses don't do it.
Well we know Nebraska has gone big for Obama, and it looks like WA will go big for Obama too. So not only does he win, he gets more delegates than expected out of this. I wonder what will happen in Louisiana.
Huckabee has an outside chance to sweep the night. Not a big deal since he really can't win overall, but it certainly doesn't say a lot for McCain.
Louisiana- 75% reporting: 53% Obama 29% Clinton Nebraska- 99% reporting: Obama 68% Clinton 32% Washinton- 96% reporting: Obama 68% Clinton 31% Obama wins by big margins, and that will affect the delegate count. Winning by over 2 to 1 in Wash and Nebraska, and winning by 24 points so far in Louisiana.
I just saw Obama's speech. I thought the line about him being related to Cheney was kind of funny. I liked his reply to those that say because he mentions hope that it's naive etc. I also liked his use of the term hopemonger.
If Obama wins this thing, the way this campaign has been run in comparision to the Hillary lesson is going to be required study for people interested in campaign management. Outside of the arrogance issue discussed earlier, they have done virtually every single thing right. Having organizations in all 50 states has given him such a huge advantage. He's winning a lot of freebie states by huge margins that Hillary can't or won't compete in. So when he loses a big state by 5-10% pts, that's more than made up for winning a few small states by 40%. Consider that if the poll numbers hold up for Virginia, Maryland, and DC, Obama is likely to have gained a 70-100 delegate advantage in this 4 day period. That's more than Hillary can gain in OH/TX on him. Everything from the fundraising to the sophistication of his ability to get everyday people involved and excited has been absolute perfection thus far. It also makes you question the whole "experience" and "electability" arguments. If Hillary can't put away the the supposedly inexperienced Obama despite all her built-in advantages, what does that say about her biggest strength?
I'm not so sure. The key to Obama's campaign is the enthusiasm (and money) it generates, which is what allows him to have strong organizations in all states despite not being the establishment choice. Remember last summer when he was still bringing in large amounts of money despite remaining 20+ per cent behind in the polls? How often has that happened in history? No doubt his campaign operation is very solid, but the combination of Hillary's unpopularity within the Dem party with Obama's charisma is what gave him a chance. Hillary blowing her "built in advantages" instead of crushing him is the story of this election as much as anything. This will be a case study for many generations but it isn't something that can be duplicated easily by other insurgent candidates.
Certainly true - but all last year, Hillary was raising more money than Obama was (though it was close). I have no idea what Hillary spent the money on (Iowa & NH, I believe), but Obama spent that money opening offices all over the country. They said that for Washington's caucus today, Obama has had a field office since the middle of last year; Hillary doesn't have one. Things like that - the strategic decisions - are where he appears to have excelled. Certainly the enthusiam of his supporters is a big part of it - but he also made it extremely easy for his supporters to get involved. His focus on creating a really sophisticated website has paid off (I could phone bank for him online and place as few a 2 or 3 calls, for example); his focus on internet donors has given him a basically limitless financial resource vs Hillary's focus on bigger donors. I agree that it's not necessarily something that can be duplicated by other insurgents - but he is showing methods of remaining competitive in new ways. Ordinarily, the insurgent tries to compete and win the big states; Obama said "screw those - let's just dominate every small state". That got him a draw on Super Tuesday despite significant losses in CA, NY, MA, and NJ. These are the kinds of things that he's done well. Certainly, you need the right candidate. But your candidate and organization also have to be run to virtual perfection.
Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but the map is playing out very interestingly (is that a word?). The 2/12 states should all favor Obama, potentially by large margins. The other three - Maine, Hawaii, and Wisconsin - are a bit more tossups. Hillary is supposed to have a small advantage in Maine, but it's a caucus state. Obama supposedly has the "homestate" advantage in Hawaii, but all the political establishment is pro-Hillary, Obama hasn't lived there since a kid, the demographics don't favor him, and I can't imagine anyone's going to go out to campaign there. Wisconsin is supposedly a tossup. Let's say, however, that Obama does win those three states. In a 2 week span post-super-tuesday, he'd have won in: the south the northwest new england the east coast the heartland the midwest the atlantic ocean (virgin islands) the pacific ocean If, by some miracle, that were to happen and the beltway primaries were all 15+ point wins (current polls show this), I'm not sure even OH/TX could save Hillary at that point unless they were blowouts. I think you'd start seeing a pretty solid flow of superdelegates to Obama and it could start to snowball from there. It would be hard for Hillary to argue, as she did yesterday, that these states were ALL bad for her and so she didn't compete there - you're talking about virtually every demographic combination and every part of the country. If those are all bad for her, what does that say? That said, she has a good chance today in Maine, as well as Hawaii and Wisconsin. Maine's no big deal, but the other two could put her on a winning streak going into the TX/OH races.
