by Lynette Long
As I viewed the Texas Primary returns, I was thrilled when Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Texas. But when national television provided a glimpse of the chaos of the caucus, I thought this does not look like democracy in action. Voters in gymnasiums waiting to caucus in the middle of the night, voters standing in line for hours, and police called into the polls to ensure safety and calm disputes. I did not recognize my country. When all the results were tallied, Texas was painted purple by the pundits since Hillary won the primary and Obama won the caucus. But as the delegates were distributed, I watched the results with dismay and confusion. How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day? Obviously the voters' perceptions of the candidates had not changed in a few hours. Voters who were voting in the caucus were supposed to have voted in the primary. Obviously caucus voters were not a random sample of primary voters. Certain groups of citizens were less likely or able to attend a caucus: senior citizens afraid to go out or drive at night, single mothers without a babysitter, and people doing shift work. Could these voters, disenfranchised by the process, account for a sixteen point swing in the Texas Two Step? It seemed like a large swing and a statistical improbability to me.
With a Master’s degree in math and fourteen math books under my belt, albeit some of them for first graders, I felt well-armed to explore this problem further. Eventually, I examined the results of the caucuses in all fourteen states and compared the results to the results in the primaries. I was stunned by the fact that Obama won thirteen out of fourteen caucuses when he only won eighteen out of thirty-nine primaries, another statistical improbability. He was just better organized, was the common retort from Obama supporters when I challenged this feat. Initially I bought the combination of better organization and voter disenfranchisement and labeled it "the caucus factor." I figured that the caucus factor was worth about 15 points in each of the caucuses. In an election this close, that was a hefty difference and one that could determine the candidate for presidency.
Superior organization and voter disenfranchisement were the only explanations I could find to justify the magnitude of the discrepancies I found between caucus results and primary results and caucus results and polls, but I still was not satisfied with my conclusion since it was a historic election where voters for both candidates were motivated to participate. It was at a meeting of Hillary supporters at a friend’s house that I got a glimpse of what really happened. Each of the people at the meeting stood up and introduced themselves. Many were Clinton volunteers who had personally attended one or more of the caucuses. During the introductions, many told stories of busing of out of state voters into caucus states, intimidation from the Obama campaign, and rampant voter fraud. I got the names of many of these women and contacted them, eager to hear the details of their trials. As a researcher, I must admit my initial interviews, although accurate, were undirected since I did not know what I was looking for. I was a voyager in a dark room without a flashlight, but as someone who has developed many research protocols and interviewed thousands of subjects it was easy to discern that the people I was talking to were passionate, honest, and highly motivated to share their experiences. In time I developed an interview protocol, and posted requests for subjects on the internet. Many of those interviews are posted on this website and more will be added as they are conducted. Please feel free to contact me at DrLynetteLong@aol.com if you would like to be interviewed or if you have information you would like to contribute to this report.
My conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process. These efforts produced invalid results in the caucus states and the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for the presidency against the will of the people. I further conclude after systematically examining large PAC contributions to the campaigns of various members of congress that the Democratic hierarchy, including Dean, Pelosi, and Clyburn, selected Obama as the nominee and pressured superdelegates to endorse him.