Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Caucus Voting vs Primary Voting, Hillary Clinton Closes the Gap by incredibly Large Margins in Idaho, Nebraska, Washington AND Texas.

Above is the possibly unreflective margin of victory for Barack Obama in the 2008 democratic daho Caucus. Below is the Result of the 2008 Idaho Primary. Please note how much closer the final results are?

The 2008 Democratic Idaho Primary vote reveals a much closer 56%-37% margin of victory from the ridiculously unrepresentative caucus vote margin of victory of 70%-17%.

Hillary Clinton enjoyed a 440% increase in her vote total from the caucus vote to the primary vote while Barack Obama only had a 140% increase from his caucus vote total to his primary vote total.

The Idaho Primary Vote swing is 43% in Hillary's favor.

Up Above is the 2008 Democratic Nebraska Caucus and Primary Results. After losing in the 2008 democratic Nebraska Caucus by a 68% to 32% margin of victory, Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap to lose by only two percentage points, 49% to 47% in the 2008 democratic Nebraska Primary. The Nebraska primary vote represents a 38% shift in the popularity of both candidates towards Hillary Clinton.

It is important to note that MSNBC ON AIR POLITICAL COMMENTATORS (INCLUDING OLBERMANN AND MATTHEWS) REFUSED TO DISCUSS the 2008 DEMOCRATIC NEBRASKA PRIMARY RESULTS whenever they were flashed on the screen during their coverage of the election that particular night. On at least two occasions the miniscule margin of victory GRAPHIIC appeared on the MSNBC screen and at one point, one of the commentators groused out loud to take that graphic off the screen without even ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT IT MEANT.

It is outrageous that MSNBC would show such a blatant disregard and attempt to cover up the reality of the huge shift in the vote total between the caucus results and the primary results for the 2008 democratic caucus and primary races.

The 2008 democratic Washington Caucus vs Primary contests offers an almost identical shift in numbers as the Nebraska primary. Hillary Clinton once again closed the gap from an unrealistic 68%-31% margin of victory in the 2008 democratic Washington Caucus to 51% to 46% in the 2008 democratic Washington Primary. The shift in the vote is 32% in favor of Hillary Clinton. (I recall the final numbers being 50%-47%, but we'll go with the 51%-46%).

There are another several more examples I still have to post involving the 2008 democratic caucus contests in Minnesota, Nevada, Texas, and Colorado. All of these states showed Hillary Clinton LEADING in the polls taken prior to the caucus votes, yet Hillary Clinton lost in the caucus votes by a 2-1 margin. Hillary Clinton actually won Texas by 4% in the popular vote aspect, but then lost the final caucus portion by a 2-1 margin.

The democratic party spit on the concept of "fair reflection" in the 2008 presidential election campaign and I'm truly embarrassed to call myself a democrat this year.

Mandate, Barack Obama has no Mandate, if he does have a Mandate, it's because he cheated in the caucus contests.


Update - Did ACORN have anything to do with this cheating?


Did you know that Illinois moved up its primary vote date form the end of March 2008 to the beginning of February 2008 yet Michigan and Florida were disqualified when they moved up their voting dates even though Michigan was especially desperate to move up because they NEEDED TO BE HEARD FROM by the presidential candidates, and Florida had no choice because it was a Republican congress.


James said...

I don't think you really understand that a caucus and a primary are two COMPLETELY different animals in the Democrat form of primary voting.

In the DNC Primary system, much like a general election, voters choose their candidate using a ballot system. The votes are then counted and a winner is chosen. Simple.

Caucuses are completely separate to the primary voting process. Often those who voted in the Primary process don't show up for the caucus or whatever.

In most states, caucus voters are allowed to convince and cajole voters out of a presidential preference group, thus swaying the margin of victory to one side at a greater spread than what would be seen in the primary.

The candidates and their staff are not allowed anywhere NEAR those portioning out delegates or setting and counting the presidential preference groups.

While you succeeded in showing us that there are different results for the primary and caucus votes I'm not sure where the "cheating" took place.

Care to elaborate?

SergeiRostov said...

I'm not sure where the "cheating" took place.

That's already been shown over and over, including in - but by no means limited to - official police reports in Texas.
Evidence of cheating includes:

- caucus sheets filled out in advance by Obama supporters, including the names of people who weren't there;
- Obama supporters physically intimidating and blocking Hillary supporters from voting, directly by putting themselves in the way, and indirectly by making the lines so long that Hillary-supporter demographics (seniors, working-class parents, especially with children, etc) could not stay to vote;
- Obama supporters voting in districts where they were not eligible to;
- Obama suppporters literally locking the doors to keep out Hillary supporters.

There is ample evidence ofthis, including - but again, not limited to - video proof of this as well reports filed by police who witnessed said tactics.

This particular post is simply showing what the effect is when all this happens.


A.M. said...

There are accusations of busloads of Barack Obama volunteers being brought in to various caucus locations. There are accusations that Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson basically shared their extra voters so each could finish as high as possible and receive more funding from the government.

My concern is that the actual voting popularity of each candidate was completely throw asunder. As Harold Ickes so aptly asked of Robert Wexler, do you believe in "fair reflection".

Obviously the Barack Obama side does not, and that means they are OLD SCHOOL, and Hillary Clinton is actually new school.

obomba said...

Pretty naive. What a pathetic blog. what a pathetic argument.

Anonymous said...

It's over.

Get on board, or vote for a 3rd Bush term.

Do you want more Thomases, Roberts, Scalitos on the Court?

Do you care about Roe v. Wade?

John McCain is your guy if you like them apples.

hcc2008 said...

"anonymous" is an idiot who hasn't yet figured out that the only place for people on Obama's bus is UNDER IT.

Get on board, or vote for a 3rd Bush term.

-- Obama IS GWB's third term: Arrogant, self-aggrandizing, uninformed, untrustworthy, and oh yes, extremely inarticulate when not reading someone else's words off a teleprompter.

Do you want more Thomases, Roberts, Scalitos on the Court? Do you care about Roe v. Wade?

-- Fearmongering, one of Obama's biggest-best sources of hypocrisy ... accusing Hillary of it while doing it himself times 10. Roe v. Wade is established law, the votes exist to kill it now but it's not being killed.

John McCain is your guy if you like them apples.

-- He's 100 times more honorable than Schmobama.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of nonsense. In Washington, the reason for the big difference between the primary and the caucus is very simple.

Obama supporters were excited, enthused, and committed. The typical Clinton supporter was less so, and many of them did not show up.

I'm the PCO in my sleepy, suburban precinct. Obama people were fired up, they got the word out about how the process worked, held training sessions, etc. Meanwhile, most of the people who eventually voted for Clinton in the primary didn't get involved.

Very simple - no grand conspiracies, no intimidation tactics, no bullying (more people switched to Clinton than to Obama in the final round of voting). Just organization and enthusiasm.

Alessandro Machi said...

It is kind of amazing how one can actually SHOW NUMBERS THAT SHOW HUGE SHIFTS in voting totals, and some will stay say so what.

There were SEVERAL other caucuses in which Hillary Clinton was actually leading or tied, and once again, Barack Obama won by his magical 2-1 majority.

We are now only 10 months into Barack Obama's presidency and all I see is a president who loves wall street.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Obama and his supporters were fired up about cheating... Enthusiasm doesn't cause that much of a difference. Even if it did it still only suggests that caucuses are undemocratic.

Photo Background Editor said...

Photo Background Editor plays a key role in removing the background of the photo. The editor needs to remain highly careful while removing the background. The service is an essential one for the online business community.

Photo Retouching Services said...

Photo Retouching is one of the most impressive services in photo editing. It helps to bring a positive vibe and look on the photos. Most of the end-level users are in great needs of Photo Retouching Services. But you need to be careful while selecting the best one.
Chat conversation end
Type a message...