Fact: 59000 registered dems in WY. 8753 actually voted. *59265* voted in the 2004 primary.

[joshcryer]

I suppose a little over 10% are the "will of the people." :shrug:

Caucuses are not representative of the population. This *will* be argued at the DNC. If it is ignored then there will be reprecussions.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Oh and these are record turnouts for a WY caucus as far as I know.

The WY (state level) primary in 2004 had 59,265 votes, just for perspective. :)

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/d/Faqs/pid/273363

HERE ARE THE VOTE TOTALS, THEY ARE NOT "STATE/DISTRICT LEVEL DELEGATES"

As of this edit the number is 8753 votes, remember, compare this to 59,265 (out of approx 62,385) in 2004 for state level representatives. You'd think a Presidential Election was even more important, and more people were encouraged to vote!

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

STOP TELLING ME THEY ARE DISTRICT LEVEL DELEGATES, CNN IS WRONG

[pdxmom]

1. Well, if it's a record turnout, then it's the will of the people of Wyoming. N/T

[TahitiNut]

164. Funny about "facts" ... since Wyoming CAUCUSED in 2000 and 2004, too.

Ain't that strange?

In 2004, Wyoming held its caucus on March 20th. In 2000, Wyoming held its Republican caucus on March 10th and Democratic caucus on March 25th.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004_Primaries.htm

[joshcryer]

165. Yes I know that.

You really are missing the point.

[TahitiNut]

171. No. I get the "point."

It's *Wahh-wahh-wahh* from the folks who want to change the "rules" as soon as they don't have an advantage.

Tough shit. :nopity: As an independent, I say "It's your party! Deal with it!"

[joshcryer]

172. Please be more substantative than that.

I'm not saying any rules should be changed, and you will be unable to prove that I am.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Or maybe you're simply not as smart as you appear to yourself......

Why don't you google, do due diligence, and get back to us on this.

Hint: You are sooooo wrong, it ain't even funny, and this thread will make you look as you appear; not so smart.



at all.

[joshcryer]

4. I don't think they're state delegates, because NYT and RCP count them as votes.

[ruggerson]

6. why don't you fill us in

[joshcryer]

8. They're implying, though not supporting, that these votes are state delegates.

I trust RCP and NYT over CNN, myself.

[ruggerson]

14. so they're saying that 9000 Democrats attend the state delegate caucus

in a state of only 59000 registered Dems?

[joshcryer]

17. Yes, which is assinine because the delegate selection plan calls for 1 delegate per 600 voters.

So they have no fucking clue what they're talking about. They are certifiable idiots.

[ruggerson]

Frenchie.... yo... where did you disappear to? Where is Josh screwing up the math?

[joshcryer]

31. Check out the topic! Here are the actual totals!

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

My God! Look at the totals! Look! Proof! Caucuses fuck you! FUCK YOU!

[ruggerson]

33. I'm waiting for her to respond to you. She seems to have vanished.

[joshcryer]

36. They're letting the topic drop, they don't want it to be discussed. I am frankly OUTRAGED.

I AM OUTRAGED. OVER 50K VOTERS WERE DISENFRANCHISED BY THE CAUCUS SYSTEM.

I will NOT let this die. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. I WILL PREACH THIS UNTIL THE FUCKING CONVENTION.

[ruggerson]

47. well

check those numbers again. I might be wrong, but I think the TOTAL number of registered Dems in WY is 59,000 and I think only about 500 showed up to caucus last time in 2004. I'm not sure your link has it right in that regard. But I might be wrong.

You are totally correct in your assertion that only 8 thousand out of 59 thousand showed up. Which is dismal. Better than 2004, but not very good for democracy.

[joshcryer]

54. They had a primary in 2004 from what I understand.

[dkf]

194. Well in 2004 I went to the Prez Caucus in my state in Feb and in

September we had the primary, where the only choice we had for Prez was Kerry/Edwards and we had all the downticket elections.

I'm guessing you are confusing the two.

[joshcryer]

195. I'm *not*. I'm pointing out the *voter difference.*

How unbelievably hard is this to understand?

[WolverineDG]

53. Well maybe you should have gone to Wyoming

& worked for HRC's campaign to get more people to the caucuses, instead of posting on DU.

Just a suggestion.

dg

[joshcryer]

55. I don't intefere with state affairs, I'm sure that once the local party realizes that it doesn't...

...let people vote, they'll go back to the primary system they had in 2004.

[WolverineDG]

66. Yes, crabbing about another state's process isn't "interfering"

but organizing supporters for your candidate (in a state the Dems have ignored for years) & getting them to the caucuses is. Oooookaaaaay.

dg

[joshcryer]

70. I'm not 'crabbing' about WY, I'm 'crabbing' about caucuses in general.

I do consider caucuses intrinsically interfering since they allow campaigning at the polls.

[BearSquirrel2]

202. When Hillary gives up her Nevada delegates ...

When Hillary gives back her Nevada delegates, come talk to us.

I would also prefer primaries. But this is what the elected officials of Wyoming decided upon.

BTW, in MI and FL, caucuses are really the only choice now in absence of massive donations for new primaries.

[susankh4]

48. Indeed..

The most undemocratic thing imaginable.

How do they get away with this? If, say, Kosovo held an election like this we'd throw it out as evidence that they were not democratic.

Oh, that's right... Americans can do what they want. Noone dare question.

[joshcryer]

52. Cuba holds more honest elections than this.

At least they have polls.

[susankh4]

57. Damn straight they do!

Caucuses are a joke. Period.

[formernaderite]

76. primaries are not exactly "elections"

no one is being "elected"...it's simply a process for choosing your candidate for the election. The states have always chosen their own process, and it's unlikely they would want to give up this right.

[shimmergal]

140. This is all true, but

insofar as so many people are getting outraged over the non-democratic nature of Superdelegates making their own choices, etc. there seems to be something of a double standard going on.

Either insist the major parties choose their candidates thru a well-vetted primary system, or we might as well go back to the smoke-filled-room practices for picking the slate.

[formernaderite]

190. well at least this primary season is proving to be a good

education and test for all of us...we will undoubtedly work to change our system for the next election.

[TheDoorbellRang]

141. OK. Here's some info re Wyoming

The Green Papers shows the total qualified vote from Wyoming's 3/8/08 caucus at 8689, which is the same figure shown at Real Clear Politics.

In March of 2004, Wyoming also had a caucus to choose a presidential nominee. The qualified vote total in that caucus was 188.

On August 17, 2004, Wyoming held a primary for statewide elections and Congress. This site doesn't show total population of votes, but the Wyoming Democrats site you reference says that 59,000+ democrats voted in the 2004 primary.

So.

More Democrats vote in primaries than caucuses. :shrug:

This primary season has drawn a lot more attention to the different processes by which each state selects their presidential nominee. For every post by someone outraged at another state's modus operandi, we get a post by someone from that state defending their methods, and tartly advising folks who don't live there to butt out. It won't get changed during this season, and I would venture to guess that trying to get individual states to change their system after this will produce some real knock-down-drag-em-outs. As Will Rogers said so profoundly: "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

[joshcryer]

61. Hey FrenchieCat, how smart am I, again?

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

3. Why is Clinton even running? She and her supporters only give a fuck about maybe 5 states

[joshcryer]

9. These are all arguments that will be made at the DNC to the necessary superdelegates.

:hi:

[Gore1FL]

18. 85% of them?

[OzarkDem]

184. Got a link? Cause I don't believe what you're selling

[Exilednight]

5. Ummmm, no... that's now how a caucus works. That's the number of delegates.....

that are sent to the state convention, which then elects the delegates to participate in the National Convention.

[joshcryer]

7. Yes, yes, I've been over this before with these people. Why are NYT and RCP counting them as votes?

You'd think they would have worked out the kinks by now.

[Exilednight]

12. No, and I will tell you how you are wrong......

There were more than 7 caucus sites and several sites were reporting over 1,000 people participating. The largest caucus had over 1,500 people in attendance.

[joshcryer]

15. There were exactly 23 caucus sites.

And if I can find where the NYT is finding its info I will post it. Until then you will have to prove me, the NYT, and RCP wrong.

[Exilednight]

26. Then CNN or NYT is fudging the numbers, Every time a new caucus site reported....

their numbers, CNN only raised the percentage by 8 points, which would make for 12 caucus sites.

It went from 70% to 78% to 86%.

[joshcryer]

28. I misread.

[Emit]

16. They do that just to confuse us

;)

[joshcryer]

21. No, I don't think this late in the game the NYT and RCP would make that mistake.

[Emit]

27. kidding, but

those probably aren't votes, they're probably narrowed down to precinct delegates, which then get narrowed down to county and state delegates, that then get narrowed down to the delegates (15 is it from Wyoming?) that get to go to the National Convention.

[BalancedGoat]

11. You're wrong.

That was true for a few states and a number of people just seem to assume it's true for all of the caucuses. There's only 319 delegates to the state convention.

[Emit]

13. The number gets narrowed down, from many to few

after a county and state convention, following the precinct caucus, to the Ntl. Convention

[BalancedGoat]

24. Not all caucuses are the same.

What you say is true of Iowa and probably a few others. In Wyoming, these were the county caucuses. The counties elected 302 delegates to represent them at the state convention where they will then choose 12 delegates to represent them at the national convention.

[joshcryer]

32. Washington State had almost the exact same delegate approportionment plan.

I can't find it anymore but they had vote totals on their site, too. I think they took it down for some unknown reason. Wonder if it's mathematically possible to reverse the algorithm.

[Emit]

43. Thanks for the input

and welcome to DU :hi:

[joshcryer]

19. Where are you getting that figure?

[BalancedGoat]

29. Link

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

[joshcryer]

30. Thank you! Proof at last! Wow this is epic!

I'm glad you spotted that!

[goldcanyonaz]

10. Fuck yeah! Dat's HUGH!!!!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Everyone knows Obama will win. What's the point?

It's a whisper campaign at this point.

"Psst! Hill!....I, uh, got some news!" tremble

[joshcryer]

22. I just want people to understand how "representative" their democracy is.

They won't listen, they don't care.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. I'm fully aware of the Hobson's Choice.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

23. Just a kick since this dropped so quickly. 23 caucus sites held 60% of the dem population?

That's what Obama supporters here would have you believe. :rofl:

[hell-bent]

37. According to CNN

Obama got about 2,000 more votes than Clinton in Wyoming. Now, compare that to Hillary getting 229,873 more votes than Obama in Ohio. You are right, that's what the super delegates will look at in Denver.

[joshcryer]

44. Yes, the superdelegates will compare these elections, fairly, as they are supposed to do.

[Bill McBlueState]

77. exactly

People will pay more attention to Ohio than Wyoming, because more people live in Ohio than in Wyoming.

Here are CNN's delegate counts for Ohio:
Clinton -- 71
Obama -- 59

And for Wyoming:
Clinton -- 4
Obama -- 7

Ohio has more people, and thus more delegates.

When you continue this process by adding up delegates from all the states, Obama has the lead right now. So if you were deciding who is more popular among Democrats who have voted, as you're suggesting the superdelegates might do, you'd probably go with Obama.

[Lucinda]

97. Yup. If it comes down to it, it will be a BIG factor.

[BearSquirrel2]

203. Are you including the dittoheads???

And, are you assuming that these very same people will be unwilling to vote for Obama?

[MadBadger]

34. Actually its 8692.

[joshcryer]

38. It's a moving target. :) I will update as long as I can.

[ruggerson]

39. but there were a bunch of Obama supporters

running around screaming that those numbers were delegates not voters. And there were FIVE times the number of voters.

Then this appeared:

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

which indicated they were flat out wrong.

And they've all vanished.

[hell-bent]

65. They are an ephemeral bunch.

[Bread and Circus]

35. Blow it out your ass. Your girl lost and that is the ONLY reason you are crying.

Please link me one post where you were crying about caucuses prior this primary season.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[joshcryer]

40. Nope, I'm upset that 2004 there was a 90% turnout and this year it's a 15% turnout (BEST CASE).

That's a fucking fact.

[Bread and Circus]

72. Here's a tissue.

If you had crusaded against caucuses all along for the last 8 years, you'd have my respect. However, it is very apparent the only reason Clinton and her supporters don't like them is because she loses them.

My theory is a lot of her "base" comes from people who are not only too lazy to make it to a caucus but they are also too lazy to avail themselves of the records and rhetoric of the candidates. The "I didn't know Obama is not a Muslim" crowd. You know, the kind from the Southern Ohio.

The last thing we need is uninformed voters picking our leaders. It's a huge reason why a guy like Bush even got 100yards near of the White House.

If you want to fix the system, then fine fix it. There's a lot that can be done and if you want to have an "all primary" nomination process I wholeheartedly support that.

But that's not the rules of the game that we are playing now.

You whining about it doesn't change the rules and won't garner you support because it's apparent that if Hillary were winning the caucuses that would be "aok" with you.

After all is said and done, I dare you to take the time and help reform the system.

I know you won't but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

People get the government they deserve. So you might want to think about that when you cheer as Clinton continues to try to destroy Obama. If she would govern anything like she campaigns, then we are going to get Bush the III.

[joshcryer]

73. I have. You don't know me. I found DU because of Election 2000.

There are a large vocal group of us (robbedvoter is another one) who is ardently against caucuses, delegates, the electoral college, and so on. The Americn people, in general, consider "popular vote" the harbringer of freedom. People think democracy, they think one vote = one count. In the USA it is seen though, especially in tight races, that this is in fact not the case, and that those powerbrokers in the party are the ones who control things.

Please don't argue some "politicians of the elite" garbage, I find the concept disgusting.

[Bill McBlueState]

79. Now, this sounds a little more reasonable

There's a lot to complain about in our electoral system. If Clinton were also mounting campaigns against the electoral college and first-past-the-post voting, her complaint about caucuses would sound more legitimate. Instead, she only seems to take issue with whatever feature of the process is giving her trouble at any given time.

[joshcryer]

81. Yes, she's a politician.

Just like Obama is a politician. They do what's politically valuable. But Hillary's argument isn't that these states shouldn't count, just count them proportionately.

[Bread and Circus]

89. Exactly. It's called cherry picking. And that's what the OP is about too. Don't be fooled.

[joshcryer]

90. Please don't spout unsubstantiated lies and distortions.

Thank you.

[Bread and Circus]

124. Do you need another tissue?

[joshcryer]

125. Hah, me? I've owned this thread. People don't dare dispute what I'm saying.

All facts here. :) :hi:

[Lucinda]

98. This is one of the two things I'd like to see DU work together on...

Election reform and the manipulation of our elections by the media

[joshcryer]

102. You won't get election reform if the broken system gets the wrong person nominated.

It wouldn't be in their interests to reform and they wouldn't have political capital to do the reforming.

[Lucinda]

114. We definitely can do something about it. A lot of the problems

exist because of the weirdness that's established at the state level. Work from the local level,up.

[hell-bent]

46. Suck it up,

the Messiah is going down in Denver! Ha,ha,ha,ha,

[Tarheel_Dem]

74. hhhmmmm...another Clintonite with a hidden profile. Strange that...

[joshcryer]

75. Do you have anything of interest to contribute to this thread?

Or is it continued non-sense?

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. Nonsense? you mean like the rest of this pointless thread?....

:cry:

[joshcryer]

85. You do have a point, a good number of Obama supporters are filling the thread with drivel.

But hey, as long as it keeps getting kicked and people see the facts about their wonderful awesome beautiful caucusing system.

[HeraldSquare212]

41. You all act like caucuses are brand new. They are chosen by the state parties and have worked for

decades. Suddenly, though, because of one candidate's poor performance in them (mostly because she just chose not to compete in them), they're undemocratic. let me tell you, if that fallacious and self-serving argument wins at the convention, there will be repercussions.

[joshcryer]

49. No! I guarantee you that WY will go back to primaries once they do the math here.

I have been against caucuses for a long time, I'm not the only one, I can name two others here who have been consistantly gainst these bullshit undemocratic systems.

You cannot defend 90% turnout in 2004 against 10% turnout in 2008. I'm sorry, you cannot. One represents democracy, the other does not.

[Exilednight]

42. Here's some numbers to contradict the title:

At precisely 9 this morning, Laramie County Democratic Chairman Mike Bell gaveled his county's caucus to order. The civic center, with a capacity of 1,500, was nearly full, and hundreds of voters were still lined up outside, in a relatively balmy 38-degrees, waiting to sign in to cast their ballots in the Democratic presidential contest.

Nearly full, so let's say 1,400.


Here in the state's capital, Democratic Party officials said 1,532 voters cast ballots. The voting, which took place in the auditorium of the Cheyenne Civic Center, had to be conducted in waves, because the venue was not large enough to hold everyone. Some voters ended up waiting in line for more than two hours to vote.

Casper had 1,532

In Sweetwater County, more than 500 people crowded into a high school auditorium and another 500 were lined up to get inside.

Sweetwater had 500

So you're saying that three Caucus sites had nearly 1/2 of all caucus goers?

I got the numbers from the AP and the LA Times.

[joshcryer]

51. You may retrieve the vote totals here if you are so inclined.

http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1144780

Laramie county is about right. Look at Big Horn county, for an example, the local population there is 11k. About 100 people showed up. 10%. Follows the rest of the stats.

[susankh4]

45. Waning interest in our BIG election

"Politics as usual."

Not good for the Dems in November.

[fishwax]

69. It's not a waning interest at all. This level of participation in a national election is all but

unprecedented for Wyoming. In 2004 they had less than a thousand participants in the caucuses. This bodes very well for the dems, and Wyoming's state-wide congressional seat will be very much in play this fall.

[joshcryer]

71. Yeah, and it's amazing how these "unprecedented" caucuses represent around 10% of the pop.

(Of the registered dem pop.)

You might try to spin that the will of WY was heard, but I personally heard a whimper.

[fishwax]

78. I'm not trying to spin anything

Wyoming has never seen this kind of interest from Democrats in a national nomination campaign, and that kind of enthusiasm bodes well for democrats in November. Wyoming's at-large congressional seat was about 1000 votes away from going to democrat Gary Trauner in '06 and has a very good chance of being a Democratic pick-up in the fall.

[joshcryer]

86. Wyoming's Democrats are highly outnumberd, but they come out in droves to vote.

Except when they aren't allowed to by the elitist status quo caucusing system.

[Lucinda]

50. Thanks for the info!

RCP has the following caveat on their page about their overall totals:
*Obama Not on Michigan Ballot; Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)

We don't KNOW what the actual popular vote total is. Which i've said all along.

Hillary hub has this info posted (which I can't find another source for):
http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6399

[joshcryer]

59. I swear Washington had totals up on the night that they were coming in.

I had a huge argument here about it. I will have to go back and try and find the links.

[Lucinda]

93. It's entirely likley that you may have watched someone estimating the raw vote

based upon the math for the voters needed for delegates received.

I remember that, on one of the caucus nights, they were talking about the math of a caucus in detail. I don't remember which one it was though.

[joshcryer]

94. Now that was a flamefest. :)

I'm glad in this instance I was able to show, irrefutably, just how low caucus votes really are. It's just not physically possible for them to compare to actual polls. And it's why Obama's delegates are "cheaper" than Hillary's.

[Lucinda]

95. I expected to find that my monitor had turned into a gooey plastic blob

when I wandered back into the room after taking a break. :)

I'm glad you braved the waters.
I love the idea of a caucus, but if we have them, we need to provide another option for those who can't attend. Too many people are disenfrachised in "caucus alone" states...

[joshcryer]

96. I could go for a hybrid caucus/mail in voter type system.

Or just absentee balloting type system. I've never voted absentee so I'm not sure how that works. The caucus part of it would have little say in the process, though, and people would just wonder why do it.

[Lucinda]

99. That would be a good option for those who want to keep the caucus process

As long as they are weighted equally.

[joshcryer]

103. I wonder how you weight a process where 90% of people can't participate equally, though.

[Lucinda]

113. I'm actually not a big fan of weighting votes at all, I was

thinking more about the way Texas handles this, by giving 1/3 of the delegates to those who caucus. The way they do it still penalizes those who can't attend both the primary and caucus.

I can understand the idea behind weighting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is anymore. I need to do more research.

[joshcryer]

115. I think runoff voting would solve all the problems.

Basically instead of saying candidate "x or y or z" you say "candidate x is my first choice, y is my third choice, z is my second choice."

Direct democracy would have majority rule, but runoff voting would generally wind up with majority rule with others being represented equally.

[woolldog]

56. Stop whining

[joshcryer]

58. Not whining, the people whining are the ill informed ignormauses who insist...

...that these are district level delegates.

[fishwax]

60. Wyoming had a caucus in 2004

At least, they did for the presidential nomination. (A few hundred people showed up, compared to almost 9000 this year.) I'm not sure what that web site is referring to when it says that 59265 voted in the primary :shrug:

At any rate, you are correct about the state delegate issue--the numbers on the screen are actual participants, not state delegates earned. (There are only about 320 delegates to the state convention.)

[joshcryer]

62. The 59k number is still important. But it seems you are correct, it was state level stuff.

[ruggerson]

63. that's my understanding too

Thanks for the correct info. It would be pleasant if the Obama supporters who were screaming at Maddie and joshcryer would own up to their error, but I guess that's expecting a little too much.

[joshcryer]

64. I edited the post to represent the facts.

edit: I'm glad to be corrected on my errors!

[ruggerson]

68. Yep, me too.

I thought Hillary had won CA by 10 points. Turns out it was 9.6. My bad. :)

[joshcryer]

67. The caucusing system is a sham of epic proportions.

Approximately 50k Democrats in WY did not vote. Who knows why they did not vote. Maybe they were working, or maybe they were lazy. But the fact remains that they didn't vote, when they have showed full willingness to vote in non-caucus polls.

50k people weren't heard in WY today. That's a travesty.

[boppers]

80. Primaries get less voters than the GE.

Always have.

Why are you using GE numbers for a comparison?

[joshcryer]

83. I compared a state representative primary to a presidential primary/caucus.

I didn't compare the state representative election to the current presidential primary/caucus. I was pointing out that WY democrats came out in huge numbers in 2004 (90%) in a state represetative primary, but only came out at 10% with *record* caucus numbers in a presidential primary.

[boppers]

88. Huh, that does seem odd.

Got a working theory why 90% of them threw away their voting rights?

Are that not that loyal to their party, on a national level? Do they just not care for either candidate?

[joshcryer]

92. Well, the 2004 primary wasn't a caucus, many more people could participate.

The caucus disallowed many people from participating. Yes, it was a Saturday, yes, people can argue anyone can go, but these places not only have a limited amount of room, but by being at a certain time of the day people have to give up their obligtions to be there. So that BBQ that they were going to throw (I know it's a bit cold there), or those cows they were going to rustle, have to wait.

People put life priorities over political priorities.

If it was a poll, Obama may have still won, but for anyone saying that this is a representation of the will of the people, I would have to disagree, as it is explicitly biased against those people who aren't politically motivated, and who, in fact, have other obligations.

Yes, it's about convienience.

[wileedog]

126. They could have beenheard if they wanted to

No one stopped them. They freely chose not to participate.

And again, why are we having rules discussions in the middle of the game?

[joshcryer]

130. Nah, because of the 90% turnouts in 2004 we know WY dems are very political.

It proves that there was more to it than just it being caucuses. For instance, even if 90% turned out, the 23 caucus locations would've been unable to hold tens of thousands of people. In fact, they were overflowing with the turnout they did have!

[anonymous171]

82. WY officially doesn't count.

Good to know.

[joshcryer]

87. Nope, I didn't say that. I am merely pointing out how it will take less precedence in the eyes of...

...superdelegates. I'd be pleased to know why 10% of a state represents the other 90% that actually vote in polls when they are allowed to vote.

[lastknowngood]

91. 2000 population 493000 59000 dems that leaves about 43000 repugs

[fishwax]

101. that math is very confusing

There are about 59000 registered dems and probably about 135-150k repubs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. And the Wyoming Democratic Party selects its convention delegates by CAUCUS, not primary.

So everything you're saying is an irrelevancy. I'm sorry if you don't like the system, but it's the one in place. Whingeing about it just makes you look like a sore loser.

[joshcryer]

104. No, it is not irrelevant. It shows that WY dems will come out in large numbers to vote, but that...

...caucuses *don't allow them to* even when it matters more (I would think a state represenatitive isn't as important as a presidential candidate).

[SoCalDem]

105. You need to take your complaints to the WY democratic party bosses

THEY set the terms..THEY decided..Clinton & Obama BOTH ahd foreknowledge of how it was set up.. she expected "it would all be over on Feb5", so she blew off WY..He planned ahead and got some ground troops in there ands built up a following... How is the result anyone's "fault", but hers?

Don;t bother to remind us all about how "her" voters work 24-7 and cannot afford to take a little time off, and then remind us other places about her HUGE following of old ladies who are chomping at the bit to vote for her, and all the unemployed people who love her.. The last two groups should have had ample time available to go out and support her..and you can BET that there was transportation available to anyone who asked for it..

She CHOSE to concentrate on Feb5 and the "big" (important) states ...states that almost any dem with a beating heart usually wins...so she could run up the numbers..

The mistake she made, was in forgetting that a LOT of small numbers really DO add up..

Small states and states without a lot of dems will almost always choose their delegates the CHEAPEST way possible.. If a candidate hates the way a LOT of states do things, then maybe they need to reconsider even running for office..

She tried the Reverse-Giuliani with a half twist, and ended up with a belly-flop..

[joshcryer]

106. I'm merely pointing out facts that superdelegates will consider.

So take it up with the DNC if the superdelegates take this fact and use it against Obama for his nomination, OK? Because those are the rules that the DNC set up.

[SoCalDem]

108. Exactly.. Once people have voted, they have done their part and what will be..will be

we don't have to like it, but there is very little we can do about it..except gripe :hi:

[joshcryer]

109. Hey, that's a good argument for seating MI and FL.

Thanks for the connection. :hi:

[SoCalDem]

111. depends on the "what will be" part

:evilgrin:

[joshcryer]

112. All within the rules though!

Who knows. :shrug:

[lmbradford]

192. why worry about it right now...

You do realize that even though Obama is much better at winning the caucuses, he has also won more primaries by far........just saying...

[joshcryer]

196. That doesn't dispute what I'm saying.

He could win more primaries and more caucuses, but he could still lose the popular vote because of the disproportionate delegate proportionment.

[Gore1FL]

107. Fact

The DNC has a formula to allocate delegates they follow that was agreed to in 2006.

Delegates represent state General election votes spanning three elections, historical outcomes of those elections, and electoral votes. If that bothers you, try to get them to change it for 2012.

It's a little late to change the rules now.

[joshcryer]

110. If I have argued for changing the rules, it is only in the future.

I only point out that this fact will be utilized by superdelegates when they decide our winner. :hi:

[Gore1FL]

135. I though tit was to de-legitimize states

Because they have caucuses.

[joshcryer]

150. Nah, merely to point out that they are not as representative as one would believe.

People believe, wrongly, that caucuses are these wonderful bastions of democracy, but the amazing 90% turnout dems in WY aren't even able to go to them.

[Usrename]

116. I think you are wrong about all of this.

Veteran politicos know the true value of organization in getting out the vote, and the caucus system reflects this intrinsic value.

Respectfully disagree with your whole thesis.

[joshcryer]

127. It's not about "getting out the vote." It's about controlling the caucuses.

And I'm sorry, but being able to control a caucus doesn't reflect the will of the people.

The superdelegates will decide the will of the people.

[Usrename]

143. The primary is also about winning in the general election.

It's not just about the will of the people, right or wrong. What do the superdelegates have to do with the will of the people?

It's about selecting a candidate that can win the general, and also about maintaining the party identity or brand. In this process, the dedication shown by caucus goers can be a crucial indicator of how effective the GOTV effort will be for a certain candidate. There is a popular movement that is associating itself with Obama, and that is undeniable and he is rewarded proportionately for this in the caucuses.

This is also the reason why many think Clinton should step aside. There is no plausible scenario where Obama wins the delegate count and the popular vote and yet the superdelegates select Hillary. If that were to happen, her negatives would be much higher than they were when this contest began. She can't start out with 50% of the people hating her, then increase this number by half again, and expect to do well in a contest against McCain.

I sure cannot see any plausible path for her to the Whitehouse. Maybe you can see a way, but nobody else can.

[Frank Booth]

117. Are you claiming that there was

voter suppression against Hillary in these caucus states?

I honestly don't understand the argument that the caucus states are unfair to Hillary. She had every opportunity Obama had to build a working organization and mobilize and inspire voters to show up to caucus. Are you saying that it's unfair to her because she's not as good at convincing her supporters to show up and support her?

And don't you have to admit that, at a minimum, Obama's wins in caucus states show that he has run a very effective campaign and has more dedicated and motivated backers? Shouldn't this count for anything?

[joshcryer]

128. No, I don't know how WY would have went. I'm merely pointing out that his "wins" aren't as dramatic.

...as people here want to claim. And the superdelegates will take this into consideration.

I've congragulated Obama on his amazing campaigning skills at caucuses on many ocassions, he knows where to spend his money.

[Mooney]

118. Once again,

I never heard of anyone complaining about caucuses until this election, when Hillary started losing them.

If caucuses are so undemocratic, shouldn't this have been addressed before the primaries started and not after?

[joshcryer]

129. I've been complaining about them since 2000.

:hi:

The point of this post isn't to change the process but to point out a consideration of the superdelegates when they make their decision.

[Melinda]

137. BS, josh, You began complaining on 1/18/08 and not before.

Get yourself a star and utilize the search function... its a great tool to show the hypocrisy and flat out lies some people post. There is no record, and I have looked, of you protesting caucuses before, period.

BTW, you never ever answered my question on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4963600&mesg_id=4964555 so I'm a wee bit cranky.

[joshcryer]

154. Are you sure it goes back that far?

I've been vocal about representitive democracy for a long time, if not here, in my other discussions with people. Surely it goes back further than that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

119. Caucuses By Design Are Not The Will Of The People. They're Nothing More Than Entertainment.

They represent little as it relates to the voice of the people of the state. We all know that to be true. And I agree with you that come convention time, that will be used as a legitimate argument.

Personally, I just hope that everyone here and many more out there, will fight within each state to do away with these disenfranchising undemocratic processes prior to the next election. They're a joke and we should expect better than that.

[Frank Booth]

120. Why are they "not the will of the people?"

Have they set up roadblocks outside of caucus sites to stop Hillary supporters from entering?
As far as I know, a Hillary supporter has the same right to vote at a caucus as an Obama supporter. I haven't seen any rules to the contrary.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Seriously, Do You Not Know This? Can You Truly Not Figure This Out For Yourself?

I'll tell ya what: Spend a little time researching caucuses, how they work, what their rules are, and how they're different from a regular election. When you have the mental preparedness and knowledge to discuss this topic competently, then feel free to come back here and we can continue, ok? Thanks. :hi:

[Frank Booth]

122. Well, that's an informative post

When you don't have a competent reply, just resort to attacking the other person's "mental preparedness and knowledge." Also, it really helps to put a waving smiley-face thingy at the end of your sentence, because it emphasizes how smart you are, and how little time you have for people who lack "mental preparedness."

Good job, buddy! Thanks for replying in a constructive manner.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. No. Seriously, Please, Educate Yourself. To Not Be Able To Answer That Question For Yourself Shows

that you are quite uneducated as to what caucuses are and how they work. When you can show that you even come close to understanding the processes and the differences between them and standard election, then we can talk. Until then, discussing the merits of the issue with someone who doesn't have a clue about them, is just simply a waste of time.

If you're going to act all authoritative about an issue you should at least have a minimal pre-requisite knowledge to the subject you are declaring things about. So please, educate yourself to the processes more, so that you don't come off as being ignorant to them.

[Frank Booth]

142. Ok. That's another informative post.

Rather than respond to my arguments, you've basically just called me dumb. Look, you can't win an argument by just spouting dime-store words, and if you're going to try to criticize my intelligence you should at least learn some basic rules of grammar first.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. Look. I Should Really Inform You To Something.

I don't need to spoonfeed you and spell everything out for you. The simple fact is that just about everybody on this board knows full well why caucuses are not truly the voice of the people. It just takes minimal knowledge as to how they work in order to discern that. That's not even something that's a matter of opinion. It's something that's a fact. If you can act like "what? they're not? really?" then it shows you really do in fact have a lack of knowledge as it relates to them. Either that, or you're playing dumb and being insincere. In either case, it really isn't my job to educate you, since it would be of benefit to us both if you learned some basic caucus knowledge for yourself first. And no, I don't have to be the one to do that for you. Furthermore, you can respond back as often as you want that I haven't 'informed' you, but what you fail to realize is that almost everyone here, even those that would refuse to admit such, know damn well why they are not truly the voice of the people, and they also would know damn well that I don't NEED to explain it to you, and that if you didn't know that quite basic answer for yourself that you do not in fact have enough knowledge of the process to carry on an informed discussion. That's what ya don't get. I don't need to prove myself here, cause this is basic caucus 101 stuff, and everyone here knows it. So please, I implore you, pass basic caucus 101, get yourself even a foundation of knowledge as it relates to caucuses, and then we can talk, ok?

Thanks.

[Frank Booth]

146. Just more of the same. . . .

How much time have you wasted writing about how dumb I am? If caucuses truly didn't represent the will of the people, it seems like you could have gotten around to explaining it already.

And what is this mysterious "caucus 101" of which you speak? Is this some class that only people worthy of posting on DU have all taken?

Your run-on sentences and vast knowledge (which you hide so well) have shamed me. I will never question the validity of your points again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. If You Want To Educate Yourself You Have My Respect. If You Choose Intentionally To Remain Ignorant

then you don't. The choice is yours really.

If you truly wanted an answer to your question, as opposed to playing dumb, insincere and challenging a point that you know to be true, just for sake of partisanship, then you would've figured it out for yourself by now.

See, I'm not gonna play your stupid games. It's pretty obvious that's what they are. When you show some skills in how to play the game, maybe then you won't come off looking so inadequate.

[Frank Booth]

149. Thanks for another inadequate response (n/t)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

157. Well Maybe Next Time, You Won't Ask Such A Stupid Question With Such Transparent Insincerity.

:hi:

[Frank Booth]

166. Or, maybe next time you'll actually answer a sincere question, instead of just calling me stupid

:party:

(though, I have a pretty good feeling that the reason you didn't answer the question is simply because you can't. I mean, I won't accuse you of being dumb or lacking "mental preparedness," but if the shoe fits ...... What, you expect me to believe you just because, according to you, "everyone knows" that it's true that caucuses don't represent the will of the people?)

[joshcryer]

168. I answered your question, you did not dispute it.

So I consider the matter closed, if you guys want to continue your spat, that's fine, it keeps bumping the thread. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. Bbbbbbut There IS No Answer! There Just Isn't!!! There Just CAN'T Be One!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry bout the spat JC, I just like to play sometimes. :)

[U4ikLefty]

170. OMC is too busy shopping at WalMart.

[joshcryer]

173. Ugh, please don't dirty up my thread with your useless one liners.

Thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

175. But, Like, That's All He's Got. If You Take That Away From Him, He'll Cease To Exist LOL

He's like a parrot with no originality.

Always with the "OMC shops at Walmart!!!!", "OMC drives an SUV!!", "OMC eats steak!", "OMC is a smoker!". It really does make him look really really stupid.

[U4ikLefty]

188. It looks like I really get to you eh OMC??? Good.

I notice you & Hillary have WalMart in common.

I will leave "looking stupid" up to YOU, the master.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

189. Are You Kidding? ROFLMAO!

I laugh my ass off at your lack of ability to say anything of substance. Your childishness and obsession with me has always humored me. You're a one trick pony, and it's hilarious!

:rofl:


Oooooohhhhh, OMC drives an SUV. Ooooooohhhhhh, OMC once in a blue moon shops at walmart. Oooooooohhhhhhhh, OMC is a smoker.

Oh noes!!!!!!11111 How can I ever get over such brilliantly witty criticisms!!!!!11111 Will I ever be the same????

What a hoot!

:spray:

[U4ikLefty]

187. First off, this isn't YOUR thread joshCRYER.

Second, you haen't seemed to notice that OMC is real good at following the rules when HIS candidate is to gain:

"The Rules Exist For A Reason. SD's Exist For A Reason. If Ya Don't Like It, Change It. But this time around, that's part of the rules and part of our process. All this talk about overturning the will of the people is highly immature and ignorant as it relates to the process. It is over reactionary and over dramatic, and is really quite silly. The process is set up so that they have some say in the nominee. Furthermore, your whole 'will of the people' argument is just oh so silly, since you're acting like the popular vote is like 70%-30% or something, and they're going to install the 30% candidate. That ain't reality bub. The reality is that from a standpoint of the will of the people, the people have made it known that BOTH candidates would be acceptable in the GE. That BOTH have enough support from the Democratic Party to be chosen (Hillary, actually, has even more support than Obama). So spare me this will of the people crap. We are choosing a nominee here. We are weeding out weaker candidates and choosing who we feel is strong enough to run in the GE. From a standpoint of the 'people', it has been quite readily shown through how monumentally close this all is that the people consider BOTH of these candidates to be good enough to run in November. But NONE of these candidates can get enough pledged delegates to outright win the nomination. So what does that mean? It means your will of the people argument is ignorant in concept and false. The will of the people shows that both candidates are acceptable. If one was to be weeded out, the other would've been able to get enough pledges to WIN the nomination. That didn't occur. Know why? Because the contest is so close. Because the will of the people is that BOTH are fine. To have the SD's, based on many electoral factors, put one of them over the edge for strategical reasons, is not only PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, but is even part of the goddamn rules.

So quit your damn cryin and overdramatic crap. There are rules and processes for a reason. There is nothing wrong with the SD's pushing a candidate over the edge here, since neither one could achieve it on their own. Wake up and open your mind to political reality a bit. And if you want to be so utterly selfish and tantrum throwing, that you'd rather see a republican win the presidency and wreak further havoc, merely because you are bitter, then I can't stop you. But shame on you."

Enjoy your high-horse...thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

191. Tell Me, What Is It About My Post That You Disagree With? Can You Provide Substance?

I post nothing out of bias, but instead out of logical fact. If you can combat that, I'd LOVE to see it. You got what it takes? Can you stand in front of me, look me in the eyes, and refute my argument you pasted above? Can you show what parts of it are flawed? Which parts are illogical? Which parts are biased? Can you, like, ya know, point out anything whatsoever? Let's see what you've got! Here's your chance to shine! You've called me out in a quite empty way, but here's your chance to provide substance to your position. Care to go toe to toe? Care to put your OWN logic out there and see if you can overcome mine? Why, I very much look forward to seeing you do so. In fact, I can't wait! Ready, set GO!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

174. Weeeeeeee. Weeeeeeee. Around In Circles We Gooooooo!!!!!

First of all, if you were being sincere, then like I said to begin with please educate yourself with basic caucus 101. The answer is a layman one that even you should be able to understand, once you see the differences between caucuses and elections.

Second of all, I'm laughing my ass off at your ignorant assertion that I can't answer the question LOL. For real, how many times do I have to tell you that just about EVERYONE on this board KNOWS the answer already, merely from having basic knowledge as to how caucuses work? You make yourself look quite silly standing up as if you know what you're talking about, declaring that the question isn't answerable and that's why I'm not answering it, when everyone reading your post knows the answer off the top of their heads. Do you have any idea how silly that makes you look?

So please, stop embarrassing yourself. Learn about caucuses and how they work. Once you do, you'll be able to know that answer off the top of your head just like everyone else here. Put in some effort, ok? Take about 5 minutes of your time to read up about it. That's all it'll take for you to get your precious answer.

But not answering cause I can't... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You're too much!

[Frank Booth]

179. OPERATIONMINDCRIME, don't you feel just a little feeble that

Joshcryer had to step in and stick up for you? Obviously, you weren't getting the job done yourself, and he just felt sorry for you. If that makes you happy, I guess that's a good thing.

From reading these boards I've noticed that Joshcryer generally posts well-informed and reasoned arguments (unlike your "you're so stupid" posts, which can't possibly come from anyone older than 16).

But he still didn't answer my question. Sure, a 10% sample is not as accurate as a 90% sample. But it still represents the will of the people. There hasn't been disenfranchisement. Nobody has told Hillary supporters they can't show up to vote at the caucuses. By all accounts, the Wyoming caucuses ran very smoothly. Obama had more supporters who were willing to caucus for him than Hillary. Simply put, the "will of the people" in Wyoming was to vote for Obama.


But please, OPERATIONMINDCRIME, do respond with more smiley face things and "take that, beeyatch" types of comments (unless you have to go do homework or something -- I don't want to keep you away from your studies. High school is very important).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

180. He Did So Out Of His Own Choice. Personally, I Think You Are Old Enough To Not Be Spoon Fed, But

to each their own.

Simply put, if you understand how caucuses work (which I'm not sure you do), and you are convinced that they do reflect the will of the people, even though they are not all day events, require larger commitments, are not kid friendly, are not by secret ballot, contain peer pressure, and other flaws inherent within them, then excuse me for finding you to be too incapable of even having intellectual discussion. Seriously. :dunce:

[Frank Booth]

185. So, you're saying that

as a citizen, I am not expressing my will when I make the independent choice to vote in a caucus for the candidate I like?

And you're also saying that going to vote in a primary does not require a time commitment, involve elements of peer pressure, or contain other flaws?

And by the way, even if caucuses are more flawed than regular primaries (which may or may not be true), it still does not explain why you seem to feel that Obama has some built-in advantage, when the caucus rules apply equally to all candidates.

I'll let you get the last word, because I really should be doing my taxes instead of doing this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

186. I Never Said Obama Has A Built In Advantage.

Nor does he need to, in order for me to consider caucuses something that should be totally done away with.

And you getting a refund? If so, what are you waiting for!!!!! The longer you wait, the more interest they make of YOUR money. :)

[dchill]

132. "When you have the mental preparedness and knowledge ...

to discuss this topic competently..." Then you can caucus.

[joshcryer]

131. Because in a state with 90% turnout in 2004 for primaries, of the same people, only 10% showed.

Now, there's a reason for this. But we can be certain that the 10% are not representtive of the populas becuse they are not a random sample.

[dchill]

133. 90% vs. 10% is, of course, a false comparison...

The primary was not the Democratic Caucus, where the presidential candidates are selected. In 2004, 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses. Compared logically to the 2008 Caucus, with 8753 votes (per CNN) - thats a factor of better than 12x. Comparatively, to call it record turnout would be an understatement.

[joshcryer]

136. It's not a false comparison because we know WY dems are willing to come out 90% in polls.

It's just that caucuses aren't representative.

[dchill]

139. You don't really think that you just rebutted my post...

do you? It's a false comparison between Democratic Caucus turnout and State Primary turnout. The fair comparison is always between two like events - the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Caucuses.

[joshcryer]

151. That's not what's being compared.

I'm comparing voter turnout to two very different processes to illustrate how one is more equtible and representitive than the other. If you would like to illustrate how caucuses are representitive, I'd be happy to hear it. However, caucuses are not a random sample of the population by any means, and you will be hard pressed to prove such a thing.

[dchill]

167. Yes, it is, or I would not have said it.

"As of this edit the number is 8753 votes, remember, compare this to 59,265 (out of approx 62,385) in 2004 for state level representatives."

What did you say again?

[joshcryer]

169. You missed this part, selectively editing:

"The WY (state level) primary in 2004 had 59,265 votes, just for perspective."

It's in the damn topic heading.

I am comparing the caucus to the primary to illustrate that WY dems come out in amazing numbers for a primary (90%). But clearly are unable to do the same for a caucus.

If you want to discuss why that is up to you. The fact remains that the turnouts are significantly (incredibly, epicly) lower.

[dchill]

177. I KNOW it's in the damn topic heading,

but you're still making a false comparison. The 12X turnout in the 2008 CAUCUS is stunning compared to the SAME EVENT in 2004. The state primary is an election for both parties, and is NOT a caucus.

Just compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, and your case will make more sense.

[joshcryer]

199. I'm comparing two different voter systems.

DEMOCRATIC VOTER SYSTEMS.

You really are trying to create some sort of illogical fallacy here but it's not working.

I can compare a fly swatter to my hand if it's in the context of swatting flies. I can compare a caucus to a primary if it's in the context of voting.

People like you are flies to me at this point.

[CampDem]

134. Yes, we have very similar numbers here in Alaska

We have about 65,000 registered Dem's in our state and only about 8900 Dem's caucused. We had ridiculous problems with the dem caucus sites because it the numbers were projected from previous caucus turnout.

I got to the caucus site 30 minutes early and still had to walk about 4 blocks to find parking. This was on a night with record low temperatures here (some places in AK were 60 below that night w/o wind chill).

The traffic was so bad I suspect a lot of people turned around and went home, especially when they saw how far they would need to walk through snow and ice to get to the site.I have heard that in rural Alaska things were much worse.

Since it would not be possible for people to stand in lines outside here, I wonder what would happen if all of the Dem's that are registered showed up?

Oh, and the repuke caucus site was much nicer and larger here IMO

[joshcryer]

138. Because caucus doors close after a certain time period, I'd be surprised if Alaska had a place...

...to put even 20% of those caucusgoers. It seems Obama has managed the impossible. Filling the biggest caucuses in a given state. It's great. But by the same token it still pales in comparison to a primary.

[awaysidetraveler]

178. Jesus Christ! You had to walk four blocks in Alaska because of parking!

That's amazing. I'm sorry you had to do it, and thanks for going! Man, you get my vote just for going that distance,
and meanwhile the rest of America is just kind of hanging out on line.

Well, thanks and that's all I've got to say.

[suston96]

144. Caucuses require physical presence for your vote to count. Some, many voters cannot do that.

Primaries in virtually every state have early voting and or mailed ballots. Everyone participates. Caucuses are violations of voting rights.

But this is an old story: There is no such thing as a bad election process if your candidate prevails.

[joshcryer]

152. That's basically what I was noting, and pointing out that superdelegates aren't idiots and that...

...they'll be considering this on their long list of considerations.

[book_worm]

147. give it up Obama has won as many primaries as Hillary.

[joshcryer]

153. I consider Obama a wonderful campaigner.

I don't know what your random and completely useless comment is about.

[CreekDog]

155. Fact wrong Josh: in 2004, only 675 participated in the Dem caucus

This year is was nearly 9,000, more than 15 times the turnout in 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_el_pr/wyoming_caucuses;_ylt=AoorQhUQljwH3mrReTpmWMOyFz4D

"From the first caucuses of the day, it became clear the state's Democrats were showing up in large numbers. In 2004, a mere 675 people statewide took part in the caucuses."


----------------
I think secret-ballot primaries are the way to go, both Clinton and Obama say the same. That said, the rules in place allow selection this way and until they are changed, we accept the results.

[joshcryer]

156. I am comparing the caucus to the primary.

To illustrate just how disenfranchising the caucuses are.

And I assure you that the superdelegates aren't going to just "accept the results." Obama's delegate lead will dwindle in the mind of superdelegates because they recognize the disproportionate and unrepresentative nature of caucuses.

[HeraldSquare212]

158. Many of the superdelegates are from states that hold caucuses

and are part of the party leadership that decided to hold caucuses.

[joshcryer]

161. Absolutely, and if they're reasonable people and these sorts of things are pointed out...

...such as the disproportionate delegate spread between caucus red states and primary blue states, they will do what's best for the party.

But I never said superdelegates were reasonable. :hi:

[CreekDog]

159. you're saying that the supers should overrule caucus results?

and give them to the 2nd place finisher?

that's a hell of a way to make things more democratic. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

160. I'm saying they may lend less credence to these results.

Because they are not representative of a states population as a whole. The GE is a winner take all primary. One vote you get all of a states electoral delegates. That's a fact.

[CreekDog]

162. changing the rules after the rules after the fact will seem to fly in the face of fairness

the best we can do is change the rules for 2012.

[joshcryer]

163. I'm not arguing for any rules to be changed.

Superdelegates decide on their own set of circumstances and views. And neither candidate can win this without them.

[awaysidetraveler]

181. Those that voted in Wyoming do still matter and do count.

And there's a constitutional reason for this: otherwise, these folks on the edge of nowhere might be forgotten by the federal government.

This is a fact that we democrats have forgotten for far to long, and which it may still take us pains to realize:
our presidential vote exists on a 50 state system, which means that even small states count with us or against us.

I'm a city dweller who's spent some time in Alaska, and I strongly suspect that it could go our way there.

Obama gets it: they're out at the edge and all kinds of pissed off about things that we don't care about;
we're in the center and all kinds of pissed off about things that they don't care about.

For example, owning a gun matters in Alaska wilderness towns and decent small-town folks want them; meanwhile owning a gun in big cities can only cause harm and doesn't make for real protection anyway.

What the hell do Alaska gun laws matter in New York City? What the hell do New York City's gun laws matter in Alaska?

They don't, and Obama gets it. That's why he's winning in outback areas: he's calling it out as it is, and he's doing it in the decent way.

My hat's off to him! It's high time that a democrat came out and invited rural America to the high road,
and my hat's off to Obama!

[CampDem]

193. I wish Alaska would go Dem! There are twice as many registered

republicans here so it isn't likely. The oil/gas industry is trying to work to get a gas pipeline here so the repukes are fairly energized. They wanted Romney at 44% followed by Huckabee, then Paul. McCain came in 4th here, but I suspect they will get behind him and hold their nose. Personally, I will vote for either Dem in the GE, but my preference is Hillary. You have some good points about Obama's ability to reach out to Dem's in rural states and he received 74% of our delegates. I am really curious why that is?:D

[joshcryer]

198. I never said they didn't matter. I am merely saying they weren't represented as well as...

...they could be. And because of this underrepresentation, there will be considerations about these caucuses.

[RBInMaine]

182. Are you asserting Hillary would have won if WY was a primary?

VERY VERY DOUBTFUL. And VERY DOUBTFUL in ANY of the caucus states Obama has won.
Hillary campaigned hard in WY and in my state of Maine. She got blown away in both. Same would have happened if it was a primary. She campaigned hard in IA and he beat her by 9 points there. Hey, if she can't do the grassroots work to be competetive in caucus states, how the hell can she do it in the GE?? Think about that. But get real. HALF THE COUNTRY DOES NOT LIKE HER !! Why can't Hillary people get that simple proven fact through their heads. Why the denial?? Every poll on the planet confirms it over and over and over again. Whether caucus or primary, SHE LOSES IN RED STATES, PLENTY OF PURPLE ONES, AND IN STATES WITHOUT POLITICAL MACHINES. Obama has WAY more national appeal and is the strongest national candidate by far.

[joshcryer]

200. No. Only that they weren't fully represented.

I have argued that it goes against Hillary in some instances, but that is *not* the point of this topic, and I refuse to get into that discussion because this is about voter disparities in two different voting systems in one state.

[OzarkDem]

183. Thanks for the information

The state caucus wins have to be closely examined by Dems at the Convention to understand which ones translate into wins in the GE and which ones don't.

The GE is the one election that really matters here.

[joshcryer]

201. Indeed.

[cooolandrew]

197. Weren't there blizzards this weekend.

[RichardRay]

205. Clear as a bell, bright blue skies

at least here in Teton County. I suppose they could have been having howling blizzard down in the other corner, but I don't think so (we generally get news from the outside every few days and no one's mentioned it).

[krkaufman]

204. Fact: Clinton supporters were equally free to participate in the WY caucuses

So it appears there were fewer ardent Clinton supporters in Wyoming.

[joshcryer]

206. Fact: This isn't about Clinton, it's about the disproportionate voter representation.

That is a *fact.*

They could've *all* been Obama supporters. The *fact* is that 90% of them *didn't vote.*

[krkaufman]

207. As allowed in the DNC rules, and as the Wyoming Democratic Party ....

... chose as their method for selecting their delegates.

If the issue is the fact that our nominating process is broken, I wholly agree. A *lot* needs to be changed. But singling-out caucuses as undemocratic once Sen. Clinton's failed strategy became clear comes across as a less-than-objective critique. And denigrating caucus-derived delegates as any less worthy than primary-derived delegates is an attempt to alter the rules of the process after they have been agreed-upon and the contest begun, and is similarly transparent.

Putting all that aside, the first thing someone will eventually need to decide, should reform be attempted, is to what degree does the Democratic Party want its delegates selected on a strictly democratic basis, versus retention of some sort of mechanism(s) to retain party control. Superdelegates *and* caucuses warrant review, as does the absence of instant runoff voting in the primaries -- what I would prefer to see.

How about the Democratic Party taking the lead on the issue, and, in 2012, requiring instant runoff voting primaries across all the states, while, at the same time, lowering the delegate allocation threshold from its current 15% mark.

But that's the future. This cycle, we have the rules as agreed-upon before the process began. They cannot be changed mid-way through.