MyDD :: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado

Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado

by ColoradoGuy, Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:50:12 PM EST

For those of you who aren't in caucus states, the mechanism of a caucus might seem strange (hell, it is for us too). But here's how it works. Caucus night, which is when the news networks pay attention, is only the first step. On that night, everyone shows up and somehow a rough count is done of who is for Obama, and who is for Clinton (usually by a volunteer tapping heads). That number is reported to the state party, which adds them all together and reports the results to the media. Within each precinct, proportionally sized delegations of people are chosen (actually elected by their peers) to attend the county conventions. But here's the kicker: Not everyone shows up to the county conventions who was chosen. In fact, many discover a previously unknown commitment and don't (it's a brutal multi-hour experience in the middle of the best ski season in recent memory and I wouldn't wish it on anyone). If the delegates don't show, alternates are allowed in and given a vote, often (and this depends on the county) first come first served and REGARDLESS OF WHOM THEY SUPPORT.

I was at my Adams County assembly last weekend. Obama won the county on caucus night 55-45, but at the assembly Clinton tied him. The same, I hear, is happening in other counties. Clinton actually still has a paid operation here working these county assemblies. At these county assemblies, delegates are chosen for the state convention, where, finally, the delegation to the national convention is chosen. So Adams county will be sending the same number of votes for Clinton as for Obama to the state convention. If, as anecdotally appears to be the case, Clinton does five points better at county than on caucus night, you could see her gaining several delegates that are currently being given to Obama. Potentially as many as 5-6. Most caucus states have similar systems, btw.

All I can say is (even as a Clinton supporter) what a friggin' way to pick a President.

Tags: Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 75 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (2.00 / 2)

I'm a Clinton supporter, but what you describe doesn't sound kosher.

I'll add it to the list of Things That Are Screwed Up About Our Primary System, as item #475,355.

by OrangeFur on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

I haven't heard any chatter about this, and after the debacle in Nevada there should'v been something.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

The county assemblies just started in the last couple weeks. Perhaps other counties haven't had the same disparity.

by ColoradoGuy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I heard the same thing about Denver's convention (none / 0)

a very good friend of mine told me that she was shocked by the amount of Clinton supporters that reported. Denver actually posted a 3% percent swing in delegates towards Clinton from the actual caucus results...

by corunner26 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't ya love (none / 0)

the caucuses?

This is part of the reason they SUCK!

There is nothing underhanded about this either.

Let me put it another way. If at the caucus you had a 60/40 split in votes for Obama and then most people left at that point before delegates were chosen and most of the people that stayed to become a delegate were Clinton supporters.... guess who would "win" then?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Colorado is huge.. (none / 0)

Does everybody get to vote in these caucuses?

Could I go to my polling place and vote in it?

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (2.00 / 1)

Well, it's totally legal and according to the rules of the party. I've never seen such a disparity between caucus night and county assembly night, though. Five points is a big deal. Of course, if it isn't repeated in other counties you won't even notice in the final results.

by ColoradoGuy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

I'd be surprised if Obama's campaign is not working as hard as Clinton's to nail down the state conventions. Maybe they just can't find enough people with the commitment to show up.

by souvarine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Not a very reasonable assumption. But I would be interested to hear more than just some anecdotal evidence.

by marcotom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:52:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

It's entirely kosher, unfortunately. At my caucus, they discussed that those elected to the county convention do not necessarily have to vote for the candidate they caucused for.

by ejintx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:15:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Another Clinton supporter here who agrees that this whole thing is ridiculous.

Hope we have a National Primary in 2012!

by costanoan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

I think national primaries are bad ideas. State by state is better, and yes I too am in favor of the primary. The ironic thing is that caucuses usually favor the "establishment-candidate" with the most funds. You know, the front-runner.
What's happening this year is the growth of the 50-state strategy, grass roots, the internet, and one heck of a community organizer. This is a weird primary season.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama IS the 'establishment candidate' (2.00 / 1)

He's the one the insurance companies, big pharma, and big oil prefer, obviously..

And he's good at HIDING it too.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%

by architek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

"I'm a Clinton supporter, but what you describe doesn't sound kosher."

I'm also a Clinton supporter, and my initial reaction was that this isn't fair, and something should be done about it, but I am reflecting on how Clinton won the Texas primary, but lost several percentage points in the caucuses even though she clearly won the state, so perhaps a small transfer of delegates actually compensates somewhat for the undemocratic methods of the caucuses in this case. I can easily see it getting out of hand, though, and going in either direction to create an unfair outcome.

States that do not have the funds to hold primaries should be entitled to federal assistence for that purpose. I mean, if democracy is actually important to the US...?

by 07rescue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

While I agree the caucus system and many aspects of our primary are FUBAR, it's perfectly kosher for this to happen. Part of the system.

Myself? I'd prefer a straight primary ballot, with everybody given sufficient time during voting day to go to the polls. Caucuses are fairly anti-democratic and make it too hard for far too many people to express their wishes.

by Montague on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (2.00 / 1)

This, by the way, is what I think Hillary was talking about when she made the distinction between "elected delegates" and "caucus delegates." Delegations from caucus states are in many cases not chosen yet and can potentially change.

by ColoradoGuy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:38 PM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (2.00 / 2)

This system is ridiculous. Caucuses need to be abolished.

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:02:57 AM EST

Caucuses (2.00 / 2)

SUCK!

This piece of the caucus puzzle I have talked about before.

I have a feeling that many of the O kids think their work was done on caucus day, but the "old farts" know better. :)

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:03:58 AM EST

Re: Caucuses (none / 0)

That's where I am doubtful. In Nevada, Obama's supporters really showed up. The campaign, or movement, or whatever you wan to call it.. is incredibly organized at the ground level. Look at what happened in Texas- Obama won the battle of the early vote by around 10%. He won the caucuses resoundingly. He had supporters on the ground before he had any staffers there. This is the power of the internet mixed with a grassroots organization headed by a former community organizer- America turns into one giant community.

I think you'll be seeing the true miracle of the Obama-machine when it registers people in Pennsylvania. Yeah, that's right- voter registration in Pennsylvania goes on until March 24th. We're growing this party. And in November, we are going to sweep across the United States of America and take it f'ing back on every level except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, will take longer.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Caucuses (2.00 / 1)

I think Kevin's point is that Obama supporters are not showing up once the spotlight is off a caucus state. It will be interesting to watch this play out across the state party conventions, but don't be surprised if the "pledged delegate" counts you've seen reported for caucus states change significantly out of those conventions. They really are just projections.

by souvarine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh my (2.00 / 1)

a "miracle"? Please stay away from the messiah types of comments.

So in your "Obama dream," do you see him taking all 50 states by huge margins?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh my (none / 0)

Not necessary. It's enough to take them as he did to beat Hillary, isn't it?

by marcotom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0)

you think the states he has won will be enough?

Here are a few things people forget or do not see.

There will be about 40 million votes for the Democrats this primary season, far more than the repugs will get. In the GE there will most likely be a total of about 140 million votes cast between the R and D nominees.

Please tell me how Obama's "numbers" give him a for sure win and a sweep?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh my (none / 0)

Of course not.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

why can't we just have an election, let people vote and THAT decides the winner?

by rossinatl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:23:03 AM EST

Because you might choose the wrong person. (none / 0)

The Democratic party can't have that. How would they ever get a Dukakis or a Kerry nominated?

by JimR on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:11:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Live by the caucus, die by the caucus, I guess. Might be a great idea for party building or whatever, but seems like a crappy idea for actually deciding an election.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:28:25 AM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

As I've said earlier, it all comes down to money.. caucuses are way cheaper. Cheaper than mail-in ballots, and a lot less prone to fraud.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh god (none / 0)

get off it. MONEY is not the issue. Money should not be the issue.

I don't care if a primary cost 10 times more. Just do it!

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh god (2.00 / 0)

tell it to the cash-strapped states.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NO EXCUSE! (none / 0)

Our democracy "should not be for sale" to the highest or lowest bidder. WE are the government! We The People are what matter.

How about asking The People if they would rather caucus or primary? I bet I know what the answer would be.

geeez.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

As I've said earlier, it all comes down to money.. caucuses are way cheaper. Cheaper than mail-in ballots, and a lot less prone to fraud.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0)

Less prone to fraud? Are you serious? How about EASIER to commit fraud.

Do you really know anything about which you speak? Do you keep spinning this support of caucuses simply because Obama wins them?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sweet, so Hilary IS STEALING VOTES!!! (1.66 / 3)

WHAT A WAY TO GO!!!!

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:32:59 AM EST

the rules! the rules! (2.00 / 2)

No, she's just playing by the rules.

by souvarine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if she was playing by the rules (2.00 / 1)

she would not demand to sit FL/MI delegates.

See how that works?

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:46:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she was playing by the rules (2.00 / 3)

Uh, no I don't. The convention determines whether to seat FL/MI, according to the rules. She is well within her rights, both morally and under the rules, to argue that the convention should decide to seat those delegations. She honored her pledge, she didn't campaign (unlike Obama who broke his word and bought TV in FL), and now she is making the Democratic case that every vote should count.

Should be funny to watch you guys being excellent to everyone as it begins to dawn on you that caucuses are not the most reliable way to win delegates.

by souvarine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

of course you do not (2.00 / 1)

Florida and Michigan have ALREADY been stripped of delegates and were told they would not be seated.

Those are the rules!!!!!

But demanding they should be seated and counted she is attempting to BREAK THE RULES.

Also, Obama's TV ads were part of a national buy that run in Florida and in states that have already had their primaries/caucuses. Maybe you shoudl drop that meme.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:56:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course you do not (2.00 / 3)

Again, the rules are that the convention determines who is seated, not the national committee. All that the national committee can do is ask that they not be seated and ask candidates to agree not to campaign in each state.

If you want to post "Those are the rules!!!!!" all over the place you might want to read them first.

Yes, Obama tried to be cute with his TV buy, but he knew he was breaking his word, which is why he got a CYA letter from one of his supporters in one of the offended states. He broke the rules, and now he and his supporters run around screaming about "The Rules! The Rules!" The man has no scruples.

by souvarine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:07:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course you do not (2.00 / 2)

And if the "national" ad strategy worked and he won, well, he'd be fighting like hell to seat his delegates...

by Si Ella Puede on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for a snarky, non-comment. n/t (none / 0)

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:13:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

DNC runs the convention (none / 0)

Are seriously gonna argue that Hilary is not trying to change the rules in the middle of the process.

You seriously think people do not think that Hilary is attempting to circumvent the rules. I guess think every one is pretty stupid not to see that. sigh

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC runs the convention (none / 0)

If the DNC were to reverse course, then the delegates being seated would not be breaking the rules.

Further, if FL / MI hold re-votes of some sort, that is entirely withing the present rules. The DNC's silly sanction of those two states said that any primaries held prior to Feb 5th would not count. So, a re-vote held....oh, anytime would be perfectly within the rules.

by arkansasdemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

alrighty, (none / 0)

But my point of Hillary trying to change the rules in the middle of the process is totally valid.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course you do not (2.00 / 1)

Souvarine explains it logically and WITHOUT CAPS!

by Si Ella Puede on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

really, you gonna nitpick on caps? (none / 0)

The word already is capped for emphasis.
Noone is yelling.

Or are you talking about capitalization of the word TV?

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course you do not (none / 0)

"Also, Obama's TV ads were part of a national buy that run in Florida and in states that have already had their primaries/caucuses. "

If he were playing by the rules then he should not have made that national buy.

by 07rescue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:59:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what exactly do you (none / 0)

think a national buy is??

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she was playing by the rules (none / 0)

"she would not demand to sit FL/MI delegates"

Many more people than just Hillary Clinton want Florida and Michigan to be represented at the convention, not the least of whom are the voters in those states who are being penalized for the actions of party bosses.

by 07rescue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she was playing by the rules (none / 0)

If she was playing by the rules, she would ask for a revote, which is in accordance with those rules and exactly what needs to happen in order to seat MI and FL's delegates.

See how that works?

by skohayes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she would ask for a revote (none / 0)

she has.

by jentwisl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

after pushing to sit the (none / 0)

delegates as is. Look if you think people do not realize she is trying to cheat, you are deluding yourself.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sweet, so Hilary IS STEALING VOTES!!! (none / 0)

How much would it cost to have purple fingers?

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:09:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please try explaining yourself. (none / 0)

I swear. How many people support Obama that do not know what the fuck they are talking about?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please try explaining yourself. (2.00 / 1)

I have the same question.

by JustJennifer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please try explaining yourself. (2.00 / 1)

Thank you.

No one is stealing votes in this convoluted caucus process. Obama's delegates aren't showing up at the county conventions. Clinton's are.

by arkansasdemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I HATE CAUCUSES!!! (2.00 / 1)

THEY SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!

by nikkid on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:12 AM EST

Re: I HATE CAUCUSES!!! (2.00 / 2)

And the majority of Texas voters would agree with you 100%. My caucus was so full of fraud that anyone could have signed those sheets. They did not even check our voter cards! I think the Texas caucus will be in legal limbo right up to the convention in Denver from what I am hearing. The lawyers are just waiting to take action after examining the paperwork and investigating the reports of fraud! The Democratic party officials are embarrassed by what occurred last Tuesday night in the caucuses here.

by mcctx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:27:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (2.00 / 1)

The Texas caucus' have not even been completed yet. Like in Colorado, they STILL have to go to a County caucus, and then the State Caucus in June, before being finalized.

I have a feeling that the same thing could happen and Clinton gain more delegates also here in TX as she has in CO.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:52:36 AM EST

By the way (none / 0)

I go to my county caucus on April 5th. I am a Clinton delegate. I wonder how many O delegates don't show up?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:12:18 AM EST

Re: By the way (none / 0)

We can only pray!

by mcctx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way (1.00 / 2)

omg, do you disgust yourself? Or just anyone else with a conscience?

I swear, the sooner people with the Clinton "whatever it takes" mindset are out of Democratic politics, the better.

Time to clean house.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Caucuses are undemocratic; and this just proves the point.

by ann0nymous on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:55:37 AM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

None of this matters, except to prove Clinton's point that caucuses are undemocratic. Obama, poor boy, can't even complain; he is too busy defending the caucus process.

Still, none of this matters. If all goes as expected (Hillary win in PA; no new vote in FL or MI -or- Hillary re-wins FL and MI; anticipated results in the other states, signifying almost no change) there will be about 300 unaligned superdelegates at the convention. Spineless jellyfish that they are, they are likely to abstain on the first ballot, denying the nomination to Barack and Hillary.

Then its game on! It's open to the floor, no one is pledged to anybody, and a backroom deal will be made. All this counting and horserace stuff is just clutter.

by STUBALL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:10:48 AM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

...and then John McCain wins 43 states as people disgusted with the process stay home.

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

does this disturb you at all about your chosen candidate?

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:35:42 AM EST

Should disturb anyone that believes in democracy (2.00 / 1)

No matter who you back in this race, you have to worry. We have seen that initial caucus states do not reflect the popular vote. Now this. It is really screwed up.

I will say, Obama supporters have pointed out his caucus success is a signal of better organizational strength, not transient rock star appeal. If this is a general trend I guess they are wrong. Hillary may have deeper lasting support.

by ineedalife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Should disturb anyone that believes in democra (none / 0)

no, it would mean that she's using the state parties which mostly back her to flip pledged state delegates or replace them.

Not kosher at all, and not indicative of anything but institutional support.

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, these are the RULES (none / 0)

Everybody knew them going in. At the conventions, delegates can change their minds. What's your problem with that?

by Montague on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The entire caucus system disturbs me. (none / 0)

by JimR on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Stop whining, caucuses are democratic only are unfair when you lost every one of them. May I also add that Obama has won more Primaries than HRC too. 29 contests so far! 29! To Hillary's 13.

McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''

by PrinceCA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:45:19 AM EST

That's a meaningless statistic (none / 0)

If you think that's a useful metric, let me give you another one. If you count states won by the electoral votes each possesses, Clinton is winning, 219 to 196.

by Montague on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Thank you very much for good news. But it sounds to me that ALL states with caucuses have to do the same as Florida and Michigan - revote in closed Primaries. I say do it soon, before June 10.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

Does anyone have any proof this is actually happening?

What would LBJ do?

by Socks The Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:58:36 AM EST

Re: Clinton Gaining Delegates in Colorado (none / 0)

According to MSNBC, Adams County Democrats voted 51-46 for Obama on caucus night, with 3% uncommitted -- not 55-45. It wouldn't be a huge stretch for Adams County to send an evenly split delegation to the state convention. Clinton might have picked up the uncommitted votes.

by Enik on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.