Lynette Long

DEMS' SLIT OVER OBAMA - LYNETTE LONG INTERVIEWED

Dems’ Split over Obama Not About Race and Sour Grapes

More relevant are the baroque delegate rules and strong-arm tactics that helped him to victory.

October 4, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver

A recent Associated Press story glibly proclaimed that “deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House.” The story relied on an AP-Yahoo poll that posed questions regarding race to white Democrats.

One is left to wonder why questions regarding race were not posed to black Democrats or why the “poll” was more of a word association test, left open to completely subjective reasoning in deciphering results. But anyone who has been following the Democratic Party rifts from this season’s primaries and caucuses would not, in my opinion, be inclined to buy the it’s-all-about-race argument.

It’s quite troubling, really, that mainstream media outlets are focusing upon “racial misgivings” factors, while all but ignoring the major divides among voting constituencies that occurred during the nominating contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These rifts revolved much more around exactly how Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination than any sort of racial divide or even sour grapes.

In fact, there are dozens of voter groups which claim outright that Barack Obama’s nomination was garnered illegitimately and with decidedly undemocratic methods. These are the PUMA people, the NoBama folks, the caucus-fraud investigators, and a whole lot of others who fervently believe that Barack Obama is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party electorate, but the nominee of the party elite and caucus strong-arm tactics.

If Barack Obama loses a large swath of traditionally Democratic voters in November, then the party should conduct serious introspection, not point fingers at white bigots and rednecks.

Howard Dean and his minions who control the Democratic Party apparatus should examine the methods used by Obama to grab the nomination and his manipulation of the caucus system, and take a long, serious look inward to see if their party still deserves the adjective “democratic.”

In the Democratic nominating contest, some votes count more than others

When the Democratic Party changed all of its nominating rules following the convention of 1968, the goal of nominating a candidate who could win the general election was changed to a goal of nominating a candidate representative of the various special constituencies of the party and rewarding party loyalty, not electability.

At the beginning of the contest, the African-American vote was split in Clinton’s favor, especially on the gender line.

In October 2007, a few months before the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton had a large polling lead among African-Americans. According to CNN polling in mid-October:

Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.

That’s up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.

The 26-point difference between black women and men underscores the fact that the nation’s vote is divided not only by race, but also by gender, said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. “Black women don’t just vote their black identity,” he said. “They also vote their identity as women.”

But by mid-January, after Obama won the Iowa caucus and nearly won New Hampshire, the black vote had solidified for Obama, proving quite decisive in a number of states. CNN summarized:

“There’s been a huge shift among African-American Democrats from Clinton to Obama. African-American Democrats used to be reluctant to support Obama because they didn’t think a black man could be elected. Then Obama won Iowa and nearly won New Hampshire. Now they believe,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.

“Obama’s lead over Clinton among black men is more than 50 points, and among black women, once a Clinton stronghold, Obama has an 11-point advantage,” said CNN polling director Keating Holland.

Indeed, it was the major shift of black women voters to Obama, coupled with the special weighting formulas for awarding delegates, which helped to produce favorable odds for Obama to take the nomination.

As the Associated Press detailed in May, Obama used party rules to foil Hillary Clinton, and he did it mainly by solidifying the black vote:

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

“Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

Hillary’s white-woman status hurt her. If she had been a black woman, she might have held the vast majority of black female voters, which would have probably given her the nomination.

As the contest continued, however, black women voted their race, not their gender.

Did Hillary Clinton feel that she was owed the nomination because she was white, as Father Pfleger so boldly suggested at Trinity UCC in May? Even if she did feel “white privilege,” it certainly did not help her. In fact, it would seem that her race decidedly hurt her in this nominating contest.

Was the contest truly democratic? A great many former Democrat voters don’t think so. And they intend to exercise their voices with their votes on November 4.

Obama and caucus fraud

One Democratic primary voter with a strong background in mathematics, Dr. Lynette Long, has launched a probe into the lopsided caucus victories of Barack Obama, which indeed garnered the nomination.

Her conclusion?

I’ve spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.

The data compiled by Dr. Long, along with the video-recorded testimonials of dozens of caucus-goers, are indeed convincing. According to Dr. Long, in a personal interview, reports from caucus attendees are pretty horrifying at worst, wholly undemocratic at best. Female Clinton supporters reported being called “c**ts” and other sexual epithets, being spat upon by Obama supporters, being threatened physically, and an overall environment of hostility. Not exactly the democratic process to which we are accustomed.

In the end, it was the caucus states, where such strong-arm tactics were employed by Obama supporters, which finally gave Obama the victory. As Dr. Long points out, the only caucus in the entire nominating contest that Obama lost was Nevada. In every other caucus, Obama prevailed.

But far, far different results came from state primaries that relied only upon one-person-one-vote counting and a secret ballot. Dr. Long’s analysis showed wide discrepancies between margins of victory in caucus versus primary states, and summarized thusly:

At the end of the Democratic primary, one-hundred twenty-three pledged delegates separated Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama’s campaign argued that the superdelegates should follow the lead of pledged delegates; otherwise they would be stealing the election from Obama.  Originally designed to select the most electable candidate if neither candidate received the majority of delegates on pledged delegates alone, the superdelegates could vote for either candidate. Afraid of disenfranchising the large African-American base, they committed to Obama. Since Clinton won the majority of the popular vote, and eight of the ten largest states, and almost all the swing states, she was clearly the most electable.

Of course, the bottom line for disaffected Democrats may be partly sour grapes over their own candidate’s loss. But in speaking with Dr. Long and several other lifelong, loyal Democrats who now plan to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, the dissatisfaction seems to be much more than sour grapes, racism, or any of the other charges being bandied about at the moment.

If Barack Obama indeed loses this election, in what is unquestionably a perfect-storm year for Democrats, then the party ought to quit looking solely outside themselves for the blame and start engaging in some soul-searching introspection.

And Hillary Clinton can, at the very least, tell Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and every other Democrat insider: “I told you so, didn’t I?”

CAUCUS FRAUD MOVIE

Gigi Gaston has just published a link to a movie on caucus fraud, WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED.  Send it everywhere.  Let's give them our full support.  Thanks.

http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

PLAN TO KILL PUMA

Someone just emailed me this.  There is a plan to infiltrate and destroy pumapac.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Plan to kill the PUMA. Step 1 - join PUMA, send an email to join@pumapac.com Step 2 - When you start receiving prowl info, take note of the contact info and message Step 3 - Contact the people they are contacting and tell them that PUMA is a GOP swiftboat and tell them to ignore the PUMA's emails.

THE TITLE BOUT

by Lynette Long

Don Fowler, the former head of the DNC sent a letter to Democratic leaders and major contributors this week urging party unity. Intended to get resistant Hillary supporters on board, the unity letter is likely to produce the opposite effect. The letter repeatedly stated, “Barack Obama won. It’s over!” In other words, “Get over it,” or as an astute Clinton supporter put it, “Get in line, it’s not your time.” Mr. Fowler chided Hillary supporters, “I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with the people who continue to carp, complain and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support.” The paternalistic nature of this statement and the implication that the issues raised by Hillary supporters are trivial is troubling. “It’s time to act in a mature fashion,” Fowler implored. Demographics will prove that if Hillary supporters are anything, they are mature. Maybe there is wisdom in old age since they did not select Obama.

To illustrate that Clinton supporters are sore losers, Fowler compared the Democratic Primary to men’s basketball and men’s tennis. Attempting to appeal to the broadest base of Hillary’s supporters, women, by comparing the primary to men’s sports illustrates a continuing insensitivity to women and women’s issues by the DNC. In fact the DNC, the party of the people, has never had a female chair.

If sports were the metaphor of choice, the Democratic Primary is more like boxing than tennis or basketball. One could equate the primary to the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship. The two fighters in the ring, Senator’s Clinton and Obama, went the distance, 15 rounds, or in this case 52 primaries, but neither candidate scored a knockout blow. The fight will be decided by decision. The judges in this fight are the superdelegates and they will announce their decision at the Democratic Convention. There is one caveat however. These superdelegates are not impartial and both a carrot and a stick have been used to get them to declare for Obama. Many superdelegates have had large sums of money donated to their campaigns by Barack Obama under the guise of the Hope Fund or the Hope Pac. Others have received warnings that the DNC will not support their next campaign if they do not support Obama and still others have had death threats from the African American community.

The referee in this title bout, the person entrusted by the people to ensure a fair fight is Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Dean stood silently by as Dodd, Kennedy and Kerry called for Clinton to throw in the towel early in the contest. He was mute when the main stream media called Hillary a bitch or said she should be taken out behind the barn. Dean did not enforce with the full authority of his office voting regulations to ensure a fair shot at the title for both candidates. Dean turned his back on the fight while Obama threw numerous sucker punches in the early rounds of the bout. Obama won 93% (13 out of 14) of the caucuses and only 46% (18 out of 39) of the primaries. It is impossible to explain the disparity in primary vs. caucus results due to superior organization or demographics alone. Dean and the DNC turned a blind eye to the fraud, busing and data manipulation by Camp Obama at the caucuses. Not only did Dean not investigate voter fraud, suppression and intimidation, he further engineered Obama’s nomination by giving the Florida delegates, a state where Clinton had a commanding lead, half a vote each. In Michigan Dean orchestrated the decision that gave Obama delegates for punches Clinton landed and gave Obama credit for votes logged as undecided. When Clinton Camp tried to raise some of these concerns they were labeled whiners.

The bout is not over until the judges officially announce their scoring of the fight in Denver in August. The DNC wants to deny Hillary’s name being put in nomination and to prohibit a state roll call that reflected the results of the primary. The DNC wants the judges, in this case the state delegations and the superdelegates, to declare that all votes went to Obama. But there was no knock out blow. In face based on the results in the swing states, the primary states, the blue states, the largest states, and by winning the popular vote, Hillary Clinton won the fight by decision. The referee can hold Senator Obama’s arm up in the center of the ring, but everyone watching the primary knows who won. If a football game is decided by an unfair penalty, a soccer game lost by an undeserved red card, a title match lost by a sucker punch, fans typically become embittered and resentful. Senator Clinton was the first significant female candidate to run for the presidency and her nomination was stolen by a corrupt party. No letter chiding Clinton’s supporters is going to change that. Red Sox fans will never become Yankee fans, and Clinton supporters are not coming home.

www.lynettelong.com is a proud partner of www.justsaynodeal.com

FACE TO FACE WITH OBAMA -The Tale of an Oregon Delegate

by Guest Blogger Susan B. Castner

Two Thursday’s ago, June 26th, I attended a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Senators Clinton and Obama. Incorrectly labeled a “fundraiser” by the press, it was supposed to be a small gathering of Hillary’s national finance committee and while there were a few in attendance to write checks to the Obama campaign that night, many did not.

Prior to this gathering, I had had several discussions and meetings with many staunch Obama supporters. These friends have all been exceptionally gracious in reaching out and have been willing to listen to the concerns brought forth. Many have eagerly awaited welcoming HRC supporters on board. So I was genuinely looking forward to the evening in Washington with an open mind, if not an open checkbook. Having already met Senator Obama in Scottsdale several years ago, I was truly hoping to see what my friends had related to me in oh-so many ways. I was hoping to be wowed, not wooed. I wanted to hear something that would bring me totally on board with the many friends and fellow Oregon delegates who support Senator Obama.

The first question during the very brief Q&A period dealt with a persistent rumor about Hillary’s name NOT being on the first ballot in Denver. As a Clinton delegate, I am looking forward to representing the people who voted for me at the 1st CD convention and the 259,000 Oregonians who voted for Hillary in May. I also feel a level of responsibility to the 18 million voters who must be respected, heard, and no longer invisible. Hillary has expressed this sentiment so much more eloquently than I ever could. So I, along with others on Hillary’s finance committee who are elected delegates, wanted to hear that there would be an open convention in which Hillary Clinton's name is placed into nomination and delegate votes are registered by roll call -- as has been the procedure at Democratic conventions throughout modern history.

DONNA'S GOTTA GO!

It's time to write Donna Brazile.

Tell her how outraged you are about the DNC trying to cancel the roll call.

Tell her how angry you are that she stood silent during the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton.

Tell her you are not coming home, not now, not ever.

Tell her it's time for a change and she is part of that change.

Her email address is donna@brazileassociates.com.

BE PREPARED FOR A NASTY EMAIL BACK.  WHEN YOU GET IT, POST IT BELOW.  WE'LL START A COLLECTION, "DONNA BRAZILE...IN HER OWN WORDS.

A proud partner of www.justsaynodeal.com

SPIN DOCTORS AND THE PICKING OF A PRESIDENT

by Lynette Long

The outcome of the Democratic primary was determined by the DNC and the mainstream media’s love affair with Obama.   Numerous studies reported a pro-Obama bias in both favorability ratings of stories and minutes of air time. Early in the primary season Diane Sawyer asked, “Are we using boxing gloves on Hillary Clinton and kid gloves on Barack Obama?” Saturday Night Live questioned the “soft” treatment Obama was getting from the press.  Over eighty-percent of voters recognized a pro-Obama media bias, but few could spot the subtle and insidious ways news outlets spun statistics to undermine the candidacy of one candidate or enhance the candidacy of another.  Here are a few of the most common techniques used by the media.

Report favorable statistics and ignore unfavorable statistics.  Jamal Simmons, an Obama supporter and regular on CNN, frequently said, “Obama’s won by every metric.  He’s won the most states and he’s won the most delegates.”  That’s spin. If Jamal was a Clinton supporter he’d pick different data points to spin. “Senator Clinton won by almost every metric.  She won four out of the five biggest states, the most electoral votes, the most primaries, almost all the swing states and the majority of the popular vote.”

Compare one statistic against another to make a good result look bad.  When Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points pundits hammered home that a month ago she was up 20 points in the polls.  Instead of emphasizing what she won, they emphasized what she lost.  Comparing polls to primaries is comparing apples to oranges, but pundits counted on viewer ignorance.   If the media were pro-Clinton, the tag-line would have been, “Votes Money Can’t Buy - after seven grueling weeks of campaigning and outspending Clinton three to one, Obama gets slammed in Pennsylvania by a double digit Clinton win.”   

When all else fails, look for a statistic within a statistic.  Senator Clinton crushed Senator Obama by 35 points in Kentucky after defeating him by 41points in West Virginia. Somber CNN pundits wanted to spin the story in Obama’s favor, but how do you spin a 35 point Clinton victory so that Clinton looks bad?  Look for a statistic within a statistic. During CNN’s exit polling, eighteen percent of white voters said race was important to them.  Eighty-eight percent of these voters voted for Senator Clinton.  David Gergen, a Democratic strategist for CNN, called this racist voting and labeled Senator Clinton’s constituents rednecks, a pejorative for poor white people, developed by African Americans to refer to the fair skinned laborers working next to them in the fields. Gergen implied Kentucky’s voters were sub-human and didn’t count. He failed to report other statistics within the statistic, namely that sixty-four percent Clinton supporters had gone to college or that sixty-one percent of people who earned over $100,000 a year voted for Senator Clinton.

HOODWINKED

At the end of the Democratic Primary, one-hundred twenty-three pledged delegates separated Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.  Senator Obama’s campaign argued that the super delegates should follow the lead of pledged delegates otherwise they would be stealing the election from Obama.   Originally designed to select the most electable candidate if neither candidate received the majority of delegates on pledged delegates alone, the super delegates could vote for either candidate.  Afraid of disenfranchising the large African-American base, they committed to Obama.  Since Clinton won the majority of the popular vote, and eight of the ten largest states, and almost all the swing states, she was clearly the most electable. So, how did Obama steal the election from Clinton?   

Florida.  After Florida moved its primary up to January 29, 2008, the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, impeded a revote, and delayed resolving the Florida delegate issue.  On May 31, 2008, the DNC Rules Committee, not wanting to alienate Florida in the general election, decided to give the Florida Delegation half a vote each. But if Florida’s delegates were awarded full voting rights, which they most likely will get at the convention, Clinton would get 104 delegates and Obama would get 78 delegates. Obama’s pledged delegate lead would be reduced by 13 delegates to 110. 

Michigan.  Almost six hundred thousand voters went to the polls in Michigan and of these voters, 328,151 voted for Clinton, 237,762 for uncommitted, 21,708 for Kucinich, and 2,363 for Gravel.  The Rules Committee not wanting to disenfranchise Michigan’s voters, seated all of Michigan’s delegates but only gave them a half-vote each.   In addition, even though Obama did not receive a single vote in Michigan, the Rules Committee awarded him the 29 delegates for the uncommitted voters. They also decided to give four of Clinton’s delegates to Obama based on “exit polls” causing Harold Ickes Jr. to yell foul.   Take the29 delegates from Obama, give the four delegates back to Clinton and reinstate a full vote to each of the Michigan delegates, and Obama’s pledged delegate lead is 38.

HOSTAGE

by Lynette Long

By most measures Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic National Primary against Senator Barack Obama.   She won the popular vote. She won the most primaries.  She won the electoral vote.  She won the swing states. She polled better than Obama against McCain.  Yet due to his superior performance in the caucus states, Obama ended the primary with 123 more pledged delegates than Clinton.  But neither candidate had the majority of total delegates leaving the nomination to be decided by the super delegates, party elders, democratic senators, congressman, governors, and state party leaders.  The super delegates did not have to endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates, in fact super delegates were created so party insiders could pick the more electable candidate in a situation just like this.   Nor were elected officials required to cast their vote in the same direction as their constituents.  In fact, both Kennedy and Kerry pledged their delegates to Obama even though Clinton won Massachusetts by 14 points.   In addition, the Democratic insiders knew Clinton was more electable, yet they selected Obama to be the Democratic nominee.  Why?   

The super delegates were in an untenable situation.  One candidate won the popular vote, and one candidate won the most pledged delegates.  Neither candidate won enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination so the party higher ups had to pick the between the two most loyal bases of the Democratic Party, African Americans and white women. One group was going to be rewarded. One group was going to feel cheated.  Which group do you reward?  Which group do you alienate?  Which group is more likely to walk away?  Which group do you have a hold over? 

African Americans are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party.  Comprising twelve percent of the population, ninety percent of African American voters vote Democratic in every election.  White women compose almost forty percent of the population and vote in higher percentages than any other racial/gender group, but vote Democratic less frequently. They are the larger group and the more reliable voter, but the less reliable Democrats.  Do you reward the larger base or the most loyal base? How many votes will you lose by choosing either candidate?

The African American Community is the best organized and most vocal of the Democratic constituencies.  They continually called for a boycott of the polls in November if the super delegates over turned the pledged delegate lead and denied Obama the nomination.  Some African Americans even threatened riots if the nomination was “stolen” from Obama, a threat that was all too real since after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, riots exploded in Washington D.C. and over a hundred other US cities.   They Democratic Party elders, threatened by an “African American” walk and fear of violence, decided to back Obama.  The squeaky wheel got the grease. 

CAUCUS FACTOR

by Lynette Long

On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step.  After the polls closed at 7 pm, primary voters could participate in a caucus.  Sixty-five percent of the pledged delegates were awarded based on the primary results and the other 35% based on the caucus results.  According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary - 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined.  In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported. Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes. Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct.  Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.

Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges.  During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot.  To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate.  The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.

Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift.  Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.  This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary. The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions.  What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results?  Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states?  What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results? 

No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee--- but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.  The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters.  Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours.  Senator Clintons core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses. Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier.  Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus. And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration.  Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for.  At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters. 

Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses.  Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets.   How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.

Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization.  Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?

On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates.   Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates.  Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest.  Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes).  How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference? The caucus factor is at work again.  Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?

Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively. Fourteen states had caucuses -- Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses.  The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters.  In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race. 

The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses. The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points.  The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points.  This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.

The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor.  The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results. Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin.   Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound. Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points.  If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.

Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries.   In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded. In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast.  In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates. A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary.  With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.

The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states. The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results. Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries. Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states.  The Democrats have let the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.  The will result in certain disaster in the fall.