Sunday, October 26, 2008

How Barack Obama Defeated Hillary Clinton via the Caucus Contests, Did ACORN help Barack Obama in the Caucus Contests?

Just click on the image above to see it enlarged. This list is missing a couple of the final contests, none of which would crack the top 11 Barack Obama caucus contest percentage wins.

Suffice it to say that Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages were all from caucus contests, none were from his primary wins. That is a statistical anomaly that cannot be easily explained away unless wants to acknowledge that the caucuses were unfair to the elderly and the head of household from voting.

John Kerry delighted in stating that Barack Obama had won in a dominating fashion over Hillary Clinton even though Hillary Clinton won more primary delegates than Barack Obama did, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted.


Anonymous said...

Here is what the real problem is, Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, thought her nomination was a foregone conclusion. Hillary just had to throw her name into the hat, and the Clinton legacy would carry her to victory. Obviously, that didn't happen.

So now, the PUMAs want to complain about the rules, after the fact. What this tells me is, Obama's campaign was smarter, and better organized on the ground.

If Obama's caucus supporters were younger, and more motivated, then I guess Hillary should have done a better job of getting the youth vote.

The candidates knew the rules going into the contest, or at least they thought they did (Michigan & Florida). Speaking of Michigan, I find it funny that PUMAs talk about a "fair reflection" of the voter's wishes, but they don't care that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. They simply say, "He shouldn't have done it," or, "He only did it to pander to Iowa voters." Perhaps he did, but if you're told the results aren't going to count, then the results shouldn't count. You can take that up with the DNC too, not Obama.

Face it, you don't like the fact Hillary lost, and instead of taking defeat graciously, you, and the rest of the PUMAs, are complaining that the system was flawed.

McCain has very little support among PUMAs. They may vote for him, but they're still supporting Hillary, and a belief that, if McCain wins, Hillary can run in 2012 and finally get what should rightly be hers.

A little something to keep in mind, going back to Truman, and discounting Kennedy, seven or those ten presidents won reelection. History shows, once you're elected, generally speaking, voters will give you two terms in office.

The second part is, Hillary may still have her 18 million votes, but she's going to need a lot more than that to win. She may not even have the original 18 million with Palin as the vice president. Either way, unless Hillary is going to run as an Independent (won't happen) she's going to need the support of the Democrats, and their voters. If you think 2008, and the actions of the PUMAs, is going to be easily forgotten, you just might be surprised. You know what they say about paybacks.

Alessandro Machi said...

Going back to World War II, only one democratic president has won two terms, that was Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton waited 8 years to run, using that time wisely by becoming a senator, and doing a fine job as a senator. This is not the kind of lineage that a party just throws to the side of the road.

But they did, and I find it atrocious.