Slowtwitch.com Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Forum Rules & Legend RULES &
LEGEND
Log in LOG
IN
 
 
 
Search for (options)
Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Obama political contest History - What's the pattern?

 

  Tri ForumClassifiedsLavender RoomJobsThe Womens


parkito

Oct 8, 08 19:24

Post #1 of 4 (146 views)
Obama political contest History - What's the pattern? Can't Post

More and more articles popping up regarding ACORN and Obama's history with that group. Old Obama history of how he swept into Chicago state offices, by sweeping out the competition in court (Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign http://www.cnn.com/....campaign/index.html).


Of primary interest to this post, is a statistical review of the Democratic Primary contest, and more specifically, the Caucus Based Primaries.

Obama won 15 of 16 caucus based primaries, virtually all of them by lopsided margins. Yet, several states which held both a caucus and a regular vote never showed a large difference. In Texas, in which Clinton won the vote, but lost the caucus, the awarding of delegates was quite surprising.

The following is from a web site of a Hillary supporter and a math teacher, who dove into the curious results. She has done further sleuthing to figure out how and why the results ended up the way they did. What she found wasn't pretty.

The first page web address: http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/

Statistical summary page: http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/statistics/

Statistical Summary [snipped]

Caucuses vs. Primaries : A Report
By Jeralyn
Posted on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM EST

What has 2008 shown us in terms of the fairness of the Democratic nomination process? That the caucus system is neither fair nor representative.

Here's an interesting report on the differences between primaries and caucuses and the impact in the 2008 Presidential nomination. I am reprinting it with the permission of its author, P. Cronin. It addresses:
  • Voter Suppression in Caucuses
  • Disenfranchised Voter Groups & Statistics
  • Differential in Voter Turnout Rates
  • Popular Vote Disparity
  • Estimated Voter Suppression in 2008 Caucuses
  • Caucus Systems Distort Election Results
  • Vote-spread Differences
  • Disproportionate Votes-to-Delegates Ratio
  • More Math of Electability
  • Other Primary versus Caucus Considerations
  • 2008 Democratic Election Snapshot
  • What IF: Florida & Michigan

Some highlights are below, but I recommend reading the entire report. [More....]
Here are some stats:
  • By the numbers, in 2008 primaries have averaged 400% greater voter turnout in eligible voters than caucuses.
  • Of the 33.5 million popular votes in the 2008 Democratic Primaries, caucus voters have
    collectively cast only 3.2% of the total or 1.1 million votes.
  • the 13 caucus states have 23.2 million eligible voters. The average Democratic voter turnout in 2008 caucuses has been 4.5% versus 19.92% in primaries.
  • 42% of Obama’s wins are caucus states, 95% of Clinton’s wins are primary states.

Three states have both caucuses and primaries. Take a look at the different results as to voter turnout and preference in the Democratic race:
  • Washington: On February 9, Washington held its statewide caucus and an estimated 245,000 caucus-goers – 5.3% of eligible voters – chose Obama over Clinton by 67.5% to 31.2%, a whopping 36-point margin. Ten days later, WA held a primary attended by 691,381 [15% of eligible voters, ie, almost 3 times the caucus turnout] and Obama won by 51.2% to 45.7%. [Citizens of WA voted-in a State-run Primary. However, the Party-run caucus results are still the legal results.]
    The impact:

    Washington allocated its 78 pledged delegates at a ratio of 2:1 [67% to 33%] and Obama got 52 versus Clinton’s 26. He gained 26 delegates. If the pledged delegates had been allocated according to the primary results, Obama would have won roughly 41 delegates compared to Clinton’s 37. He would be gained only 4 delegates. Bottom line: The caucus vs. primary election benefited Obama by a net 22 delegates – 14.5% of the 152 pledged delegates separating the two.
  • Nebraska: On February 9, Nebraska held a caucus and only 3.04% of the 1.3 million eligible voters participated. Those 38,571 caucus-goers chose Obama over Clinton 68% to 32% and he won 16 of the 24 pledged delegates. In stark contrast, on May 13th, Nebraska held a primary where nearly 94,000 voters [7.5% of eligible voters] chose Obama by 49.4% to 46.6% ,– only 2.8% instead of the 36% vote-spread recorded in the caucus. If delegates were allocated on the results of the primary instead of the caucus, Obama and Clinton would have received 12 pledged delegates each.

    Bottom line: Obama’s 13,700 vote victory in the red-state Nebraska caucus netted him 8 pledged delegates. Compare that to Clinton’s 204,000 vote victory in the battleground state of Ohio which netted her only 9 pledged delegates.

The third state is Texas, and the report has a section on that aw well.
The report asks, "which states are more important to win in the General Election? Which are a stronger indicator of candidate strength and offer a better barometer for voter preference for the Democratic nominee?"


Obama’s 138 pledged delegates lead derived from the 12 caucus states he won is only 18 less than Clinton’s 156 pledged delegates won from all of these hard-fought, primary states: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

These Clinton-won states have a combined 220 electoral votes, 87.2 million eligible voters and cast a total of 18,400,000 votes in these primaries. Compare that with the Obama-won caucus states with a combined 69 electoral votes, 21.5 million eligible voters and only 944,000 total votes cast.

The stats show what happens when all states are weighted equally:

42% of Obama’s wins have been in caucus states wherein one-half have not voted Democratic since 1964, 70% voted Republican in 2004, 8 out of the 13 states had only 8,700 to 43,900 voters each and there is a total of 74 electoral votes for all caucus states.

In other words, a comparison of the two systems shows:
  • suppressed voter turnout in caucus vs. primary states
  • lopsided vote-spread differential between Obama and Clinton in the caucus vs. primary states
  • relative impact of caucus elections on the allocation of pledged delegates to each candidate
  • disproportionate impact of caucus votes in relation to convention delegates

On the lopsided vote apread differential:

In 2008, the 34 primaries [excluding MI & FL] have produced an average .8 percent vote-difference between Obama and Clinton. By contrast, the 13 caucuses have had a 28 percent vote-spread.

Why?

Because of the restrictions inherent in the caucusing process, participants traditionally include the most motivated voters, party partisans & loyalists and voters strongly committed to a candidate and/or the voting process itself. Since this is generally a relatively small subset of all voters, true voter preferences can be skewed.

The result is "a disproportionate allocation per candidate of the 498 pledged delegates allotted to the caucus states [including TX caucus]".
35 Primaries w/FL :
33,832,107 total votes
Clinton + 35,387
Clinton + 62 delegates
13 Caucuses + TX :
1,057,137 total votes
Obama + 299,768
Obama + 193 delegates
In other words:

35 Primaries with 33.8 million voters have Clinton leading in both votes and delegates.
Caucuses with 1.1 million voters gave Obama 300,000 more votes and 193 more delegates.
....After 47 state elections to date, Obama leads Clinton by 152 pledged delegates. 97% of the difference – 148 delegates – is directly attributable to lopsided victories in caucus contests.

As to the disproportionate impact of the caucus results:


Though voters in all 13 caucus states have cast only 3.2% of the total 33.5 million votes so far – those votes control 15.3% of the pledged delegates and 16.4% of the Super delegates sent to the DNC Convention – average 15.5% of the total delegates [626 caucus / 4047 total]. After all remaining primaries the total votes could easily top 36 million, dropping the caucus vote to 2.9% of the total. In that event, 1 out of every 34 votes will determine and control 1 of every 6.5 delegates.

Bottom line: caucus voters will have a grossly disproportionate role in determining the 2008 Democratic nominee.

Put another way:
  • 34 Primary States -32.4 Million Votes
  • 13 Caucus States -1.1 Million Votes
  • 3.2% of the vote controls 15.5% of the delegate selection for the 2008 Democratic Convention.


Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)


(This post was edited by parkito on Oct 8, 08 19:27)


TomkR

Oct 8, 08 22:09

Post #2 of 4 (124 views)
Re: Obama political contest History - What's the pattern? [parkito] [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you have a job?


ston_ar

Oct 8, 08 23:12

Post #3 of 4 (115 views)
Re: Obama political contest History - What's the pattern? [parkito] [In reply to] Can't Post

ummmm.... its how the party chose to dole out their resources, Hillary ignored the small caucus states, and lost.


parkito

Oct 9, 08 8:11

Post #4 of 4 (69 views)
Re: Obama political contest History - What's the pattern? [TomkR] [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you hiring? How much does it pay?

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)