.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Mar 8 2008, 10:20 AM) 
Barack Obama has done well in small states with fewer electoral college votes. Additionally, many of the states in Obama's column traditionally go to the Republican on election day. The so called "red states".
You don't have to look any further than today's caucus in Wyoming to clearly see the implications of that. On Feb 28 Survey USA polled McCain beating Clinton 61%-28%, and Obama 54%-35% in Wyoming. Whatever the outcome is today it'll be the last time a Democratic candidate is in WY this election year, as the state will easily go Republican in November.
I'll bet Howard Dean is having nightmares. His 50-state strategy is stupid. It might win Obama the nomination but how's he going to beat John McCain in states like OH, PA, FLA, MI, NH, NM, and AZ? They were all very close in 2004, HRC has won every one of them, and they're going to need most of them in order to win the WH.
So, is he going to piss-off the women and Hispanics in those states or African Americans in SC, LA, and GA? What would you do?
Wyoming caucus status... Obama leads 56%-42% with 35% reporting. He needs to win by 29% or more to get an 8-4 split in delegates. Anything less than 29% is a 7-5 split. So it looks like he'll win 2 more delegates.
The winner take all delegate count I referenced in the other thread was accurate with Obama slightly. The problem was the guy hadn't updated the spreadsheet he did since 2/19. Oops. A lot has happened since then.
QUOTE (SMan @ Mar 8 2008, 02:21 PM)
The winner take all delegate count I referenced in the other thread was accurate with Obama slightly. The problem was the guy hadn't updated the spreadsheet he did since 2/19. Oops. A lot has happened since then.
I misunderstood what Bent was saying. My comment that Clinton would be leading by about 200 delegates is if the democratic primaries were winner take all like the Republican primaries are. I wasn't thinking electoral votes.
QUOTE (Bentcorner @ Mar 8 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (Idiot @ Mar 8 2008, 11:50 AM)
You don't have to look any further than today's caucus in Wyoming to clearly see the implications of that. On Feb 28 Survey USA polled McCain beating Clinton 61%-28%, and Obama 54%-35% in Wyoming. Whatever the outcome is today it'll be the last time a Democratic candidate is in WY this election year, as the state will easily go Republican in November.
I'll bet Howard Dean is having nightmares. His 50-state strategy is stupid. It might win Obama the nomination but how's he going to beat John McCain in states like OH, PA, FLA, MI, NH, NM, and AZ? They were all very close in 2004, HRC has won every one of them, and they're going to need most of them in order to win the WH.
I'll bet Howard Dean is having nightmares. His 50-state strategy is stupid. It might win Obama the nomination but how's he going to beat John McCain in states like OH, PA, FLA, MI, NH, NM, and AZ? They were all very close in 2004, HRC has won every one of them, and they're going to need most of them in order to win the WH.
Why does Obama do so well in caucuses? Has he even lost a caucus yet? I'm against the caucus system for no other reason then I think you need to practice like how you play. If the national general election were a caucus, then it would be a different story. The nominee should be picked through whatever system is used in November.
She won Nevada. I've heard that caucuses often turn into shouting matches. Obama was a party activist and caucuses mostly consist of activists and young people. Hillary's base is older people.
wikipedia
QUOTE
Despite a rule in the Democratic Party that delegates are to be allocated proportionally rather than winner take all, some individual caucus groups decide for themselves how to allocate their group's delegates — for instance, by using a majority vote to determine which of the two methods to select. Discussion of party rules is not necessarily part of the caucus experience, and few rules govern the actual process. And, in the winner-take-all scenario, a group's delegate allocation may be reported as unanimous, with the minority votes ignored. The caucus system does not allow voters to cast secret ballots. Voters' personal information, as noted on a public sign-in sheet, including date of birth (required) and other demographic information such as sexual orientation (optional), is visible for everyone. Voters have the option to draft resolutions to make changes to the election process, and those are introduced by delegates at later divisional caucuses or conventions.
In Wyoming today there will probably be less than 3,000 people caucus out of an estimated 59,000 registered Democrats in the state. That's about 5% turnout. It's a voter suppression technique, pure and simple. The one who wins them is typically the party favorite. By that I mean the national committee and the elites in the party. That's why they like to start with a caucus in Iowa and then quickly declare a winner before 99% of the voters even get a chance to vote, like they did with Kerry. It's also why Michigan and Florida tried to move up and the DNC took away their delegates.
Btw, there's about 136,000 registered republicans in Wyoming so you can see how impossible it is that Obama or any Democrat will win there in November.
Update: My estimate on the WY turnout was low, looks like it will be closer to 10,000. Still that's only about 15% while primary states are turning out 60-70% in some places.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.