One of the two areas that Barack Obama dominated in was the Great Northern Plain States and some of the surrounding states as well. However this dominance was achieved through caucus contests and not primary contests.
Just prior to the final week of voting for the democratic nominee, surrounding the State of South Dakota were 9 Obama caucus contest wins, all done via caucus voting. The result of many of those caucus contests were highly lopsided caucus victories that resulted in a suspiciously high allocation of delegates to Barack Obama.
Montana and South Dakota were the only states in the Great Northern Plains to hold primaries, and they did so on the final day of elections for the democratic nomination. Barack Obama had aleady won 9 straight caucuses in the great Northern Plain States that surround South Dakota. However in the only Two Great Plain State primaries that were held instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton won in South Dakota, and Barack Obama won in Montana. Apparently Hillary won the democratic vote in Montana but Barack picked up the Republican vote!
Montana and South Dakota were the only states in the Great Northern Plains to hold primaries, and they did so on the final day of elections for the democratic nomination. Barack Obama had aleady won 9 straight caucuses in the great Northern Plain States that surround South Dakota. However in the only Two Great Plain State primaries that were held instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton won in South Dakota, and Barack Obama won in Montana. Apparently Hillary won the democratic vote in Montana but Barack picked up the Republican vote!The combined popular primary vote total of Montana and South Dakota were almost evenly split between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Barack barely having more total votes between the two states. In no way did the popular vote total come anywhere near the margin of victory that Barack Obama achieved in all of the surrounding Great Plain States caucus contests.
This once again reinforces the reality that Barack Obama received a discordant amount of delegates from caucus state contests than Hillary Clinton. In the primary state elections, where voters get all day to vote and vote in the privacy of a voting booth, Hillary Clinton does significantly better than in the caucus state contests which severly limit voter participation.
Speaking of racism, isn't Montana known as a gun loving state? How does the Obama camp spin that Barack won in a state that probably has similar beliefs to those in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, including loving their guns, yet voting for Obama? lol, actually he may not won if not for the Republican cross over vote.
When Obama loses in gun loving states, the spin of racism is used, when Barack Obama wins in gun loving states, the state is called "enlightened".
3 comments:
AM - Clinton lost those 9 caucuses because she decided ahead of time that they were not important. She decided that the primary would be over, and she would be the winner, on February 5th. She did not prepare, or organize for the states after that, because she didn't think she would need them. Obama was prepared. He really had a 50-state strategy. He really was ready to see every vote counted. Back in January, he had people figuring out the rules and organizing for states who would not vote until March and May. Hillary miscalculated. Obama did not steal the election. Hillary lost it. She blew the biggest headstart ever. Her campaign thought she was inevitable, so they mishandled her campaign. I admit, they did splendidly, after they got their act together in March. But the primary was lost in February when Obama won 12 contests in a row because Hillary was not prepared to compete.
Yes, be angry. I understand why Hillary supporters are upset that she lost. I would have loved to see a woman president. But don't be angry at Obama. All he did was play by the rules. Be angry at Hillary's campaign. They lost it for her.
Naw, that is just spin put out there by the George Soros controlled media.
At the end of the day, each state in the union should have it's preferences "fairly reflected". Fair Reflection was not achieved in the caucus state voting and basically makes the results a fraud.
On top of that, where did all the John Edwards and Bob Richardson support go in February? Why did Edwards quit just days before all of these caucus contests were to be held?
That is why the results were so against Hillary Clinton. I just want the outcome to fairly reflect the will of the voters in those states. Hopefully you do to.
As for your comment that Barack Obama wanted to see every vote counted, that is just offensive and a lie.
Barack Obama's shenanigans in Florida and Michigan are legendary. His bogus win margins in the caucus contests, which require 88% less votes per delegate selected, just prove the OPPOSITE what you have said.
Post a Comment