• Home
  • Blogs
  • Horserace
Horserace
March 8, 2008 5:28 PM

It's The Caucuses, Stupid

Posted by Vaughn Ververs
CBS News political consultant Joe Trippi notes that the focus on caucus contests by Barack Obama's campaign not only has paid off nicely but is also the primary reason he's got a 110 delegate lead over Hillary Clinton, according to CBS News estimates. Obama's win in today's Wyoming caucuses netted him a total of 2 delegates but his focus on these types of contests have given him a solid lead overall. Here's Trippi's take:

According to the CBS delegates estimate we are projecting 1,570 delegates for Obama and 1,460 delegates for Clinton, a 110 delegate lead for Obama.

But look at the caucus states before today and you can see where Obama gained his lead and where the Clinton campaign blundered so badly they may not be able to recover and win the nomination (see here for the full tally).

Clinton contested three caucus states -- Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. She won two of the three, kept Iowa close and tied Obama 41 delegates to 41 delegates across all three states.

Obama won all the other uncontested caucus states by astoundingly large margins. In these states Obama won 232 delegates to Clinton's 110 delegates, a full 122 delegate advantage for Obama.

In other words Obama leads Clinton by 110 delegates but he gained a 122 delegate advantage (more than his entire delegate lead to date) in states in which Clinton did not compete. Clinton virtually handed Obama the delegate lead that seems so insurmountable today.

If Clinton fails to win the nomination it will be the blunder of failing to contest every caucus state that will have cost her the prize. It was either a blunder of strategy or a blunder of failing to guard the resources needed to put organizers on the ground to contest these states.

Today the Clinton campaign has shifted strategy -- contesting for every vote and every delegate in the Wyoming caucuses. But does the shift come 122 delegates too late.

A failure of her campaign -- not a failure of Clinton as a candidate -- may have cost Hillary the nomination.
Tags:
Clinton ,
Obama ,
Wyoming ,
Caucuses
Topics:
Hillary Clinton
Share:
Digg
Yahoo! Buzz
Mixx
Latest in Horserace
The Finish Line
Gates Suggests He'll Work Towards Obama Goals
RFK Jr. Not Interested In Clinton’s Seat
Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by samthetvcat March 8, 2008 7:40 PM PST
"A failure of her campaign -- not a failure of Clinton as a candidate -- may have cost Hillary the nomination."

omg - give me a break . . . the leader hires the staff and makes the ultimate decisions. The results speak for themselves.

And who knows - maybe if she hadn''t concentrated her resources into the big states she wouldn''t have won those and had even that argument to make . . .

Reply to this comment
by alee25 March 8, 2008 7:51 PM PST
It ain''t over ''til it''s over. Still Michigan and Florida, and by golly, no caucuses in those states.
Reply to this comment
by mrtutto March 8, 2008 7:55 PM PST
Obama doesn''t differenciate between the big states and the small states, He sees it as the United States. This is why I respect Obama. Unlike Hillary whose only focus is to win an election at any cost and is always touting I will... I will. I will like its only about her. Obama is always referring to We will , We will change the direction that the United States is heading.
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 8, 2008 8:04 PM PST
Don''t be so naive about the caucus process. It disenfranchises so many within the electorate that results can not be construed to represent the will of the people. For one thing older people are simply not geared to have to hunt for parking spaces and walk long distances to stand for hours in long lines. Also, many of the states were smart enough to have their caucus during the day but in Texas in many areas the caucuses didn''t even start until 8:30 or 9:00. I personally witnessed many who left who were elderly or were people with small children that simply were not going to stay out that late when they''d already voted in the primary. You want a true representation of the will of the people - have primaries only and provide options for early voting. Texas, were both systems were held, should prove as a representative sample of the difference between the two.
Reply to this comment
by serrano338 March 8, 2008 9:10 PM PST
I''m very disturbed by caucuses. They are false representations of the actual democratic demographic in a state. It fits right into the Obama cult of people who feel they are more educated and have more income. That''s not a fair assessment of voters, I feel. Primaries only would give a clearer picture of the will of the voters. The country does not just belong to people with degrees and good jobs. This election seems to be about disenfranchising voters with caucuses. It''s very UnAmerican to hold contests in this manner and caucuses should abolished. A straight forward voter driven contest not for the elite would be most honest.
Reply to this comment
by paris1969 March 8, 2008 10:37 PM PST
we do not elect a president with caucuses .. let''s see what happens in Pennsylvania ... that will be the next real contest
Reply to this comment
by hhkeller March 8, 2008 11:57 PM PST

Wyoming had 8 thousand people show up at ccaucuses to decide the deocratic nominee.
In primary state millions of people show up to vote.
Caucusus are cute but not representative of the public at large.
Reply to this comment
by perrycbs1 March 9, 2008 12:33 AM PST
I am disturbed by the number of people who are concerned that caucuses are not a legitimate form of governance in the U.S.A. The same people often seem to believe that the USA is a democracy.

The USA, and all US States; are officially a Republic form of government. Representatives decide on issues. Now the USA is more democratic in that key positions defined in the Constitution (US Representatives and Senators) are generally elected directly by the people. States and local government have also generally adopted direct elections of the various titled representatives. The US president is not, and again falls to a Republic form of selection via the use of electors.

Caucuses fit very well into the nature of a republic; and seem especially apt for presidential candidates considering the Electoral College.

The founding fathers did not chose pure democracy for several very good reasons, and I know of no pure democracy that has worked anywhere as a form of government.

I am not saying that our republic form of government is perfect.... but it has functioned very well for a long time.

So, while I also like primaries; I do not begrudge caucuses as they do fit right into the specific form of governance that the USA has.

Reply to this comment
by b-easy63 March 9, 2008 12:57 AM PST
A failure of the Clinton campaign IS a failure of a candidate. it points to failed policy, failed administration, failed execution, failed strategy. It is the stuff "Heckuva job Brownie" Katrina moments and Iraq wars are made of.
Reply to this comment
by lordmi March 9, 2008 8:14 AM PDT
One more time approved: those, who for Clinton, do not bother themselves even to think, just ; Go Hillary or caucus is too complecated.
Give me a break.
It is just too much for Her and for you to understand? Then go to kitchen and cook, in stead of messing in politics.
Probably, she can not do it well either
Reply to this comment
by tlparp March 9, 2008 8:55 AM PDT
The biggest problem with the caucuses is that most people don''t understand their purpose. All we are doing in a caucus (or a primary) is answering a survey from the DNC or RNC as to who we think the best candidate for president should be. We are not voting. We are narrowing down the field so we can decide which candidate we want to have onthe ballot later. So in that respect, a caucus is actually a better idea. In a caucus, a bunch of folks get together, choose sides, then debate who would be the better candidate, then choose sides again.

This is how it works when your extended family gets together to go out to dinner. Ten people want to go to 10 different places. You don''t vote on the 10 different places, because each place would get one vote. Instead, you list merits of each, then discuss it to narrow down your choices to 2 or 3, then you vote from those 2 or 3 choices. Your family just held a caucus.
Reply to this comment
by comment3 March 9, 2008 9:46 AM PDT
There are aspects to a caucus that makes them useful. One, that the vote tally is undeniable, and cannot be fudged. You see people right there in front of you assembling for the candidate of choice. In other words, there is no cheating. Second, you get to see very clearly who independents will go to, which helps in projections. Seeing the comment here about favoring more educated classes,,, I would go further and have a system of entitlements, where depending on WHO YOU ARE, you get multiple votes. 1 for being a citizen. 1 more for serving in the military. 1 more for having BS or equivalent. 1 more for a PHD, and so on.
Reply to this comment
by rock465 March 9, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
Obama is not perfect, nor does he claim it. But I believe that he is the only real chance our country has in making fundamental change in this climate of special interest politics. I just don''t under why the press is giving Clinton a free pass on not releasing her tax returns and White House Schedule, and not having her husband reveal his library donor list? Doesn%u2019t anyone remember the controversial list of pardons at the end of his last term? Quid pro quo is a very valid issue.

Come on ABC News--challenge the Clintons to release this information so we can see who is really supporting them--I think you will find big, multinational businesses.
Reply to this comment
by Harpersage March 9, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
I cannot understand why we even have caucuses, they certainly don''t consider the will of the people or the popular vote would be picked accourdingly. And all this talk about how much money this one or that one has isn''t my idea of a fair election--or is it the old ''cliche'' "those with the most-etc... Put them both on the ballot and let the PEOPLE PICK THEIR NEXT PRESIDENT!
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 9, 2008 3:38 PM PDT
One need only look at the fiasco in Texas to see the difference between a primary and a caucus. During the primary there was early voting so that many (yes, including the elderly)could vote at their discretion without having to endure long lines or congestion, and/or possibly bad weather. This was also true for many working people and families with small children, as well as the thousands of people who actually work the polls and/or caucuses. As such the outcome of the primary provided a more comprehensive representative sample of the electorate. The caucuses were a mess and I don''t care what anyone else tells you. I was there and personally had a blast but I''m young and didn''t mind waiting for over an hour and a half till the polls closed. However, I saw many people leave because they simply couldn''t stand anymore. Others left because there was no parking available for blocks and they were elderly and couldn''t walk that far. A caucus is the equivalent of a poll and if there''s anything this year has shown us, it''s not to count on polls.
Reply to this comment
by flreason March 9, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
Excuuuuse me, but the failure of the campaign IS Clinton''s failure. She has enough political experience to override her advisors'' recommendations. She signed onto the strategy and is now trying to justify her mistake rather than taking responsibility. We''ve had eight years of a President who won''t take responsibility for his mistakes and those of his subordinates acting in his name. It doesn''t inspire confidence if Clinton is already following suit in her campaign "management".
Reply to this comment
by sjbj2322 March 9, 2008 5:05 PM PDT
Had a choice....what choice. What would the headline the next day have been if she''d cried foul. Still it was Crist who determined when the primaries for both parties in his state would be held and he knew that he might be disenfranchising Democrats. Now he''s trying to look like the good guy in pressing their cause. I don''t think so.
Reply to this comment
by rbpony5 March 9, 2008 6:37 PM PDT
Every state''s party organization sets up their elections in conjunction with the rules of the national party and their states election laws. Caucuses have been in existence for many years. I have never seen any other candidate complain about caucuses in my 40 years of following elections, except Hillary Clinton. NO ONE expected the Democratic race to go beyond February 5th and that the nominee would not be Hillary Clinton. The Clintons did not plan for an extended battle or to have to contest every state. Obama''s campaign was a huge underdog and planned to fight for every delegate in every state. They planned and organized well in every state, whether it was a primary or a caucus, including the dual primary and caucus in Texas, which took the Clinton people by surprise.
Reply to this comment
by unityforall-2009 March 9, 2008 6:38 PM PDT
I would like to shed some light on certain accusations directed at Obama. I have lived in Canada for over 10 years. I know for certain that the Canadian government, who are conservative and are staunch pro-Republicans, secretly want Obama out of the race because it is certain that Hilary Clinton would not be able to beat the Republican nominee come the day of the general election for the simple reason that the disgruntled Obama supporters would stay home on that day. Just listen to the Urban Radio in the U.S and you will see my point. Believe me, Canadians are shaking in their boots at the prospect of America%u2019s re-negotiation of the NAFTA agreement or even pulling out of the agreement. No more piggybacking the American economy. Also, There are two versions of the story as to who actually had told the Canadian diplomat in the Canadian embassy in the U.S that Canada need not worry and that this was all political posturing. the most plausible version is that It was the Clinton camp that approached the Canadian embassy about this issue. The point that I am trying to make is that please do not let a foreign government sway your decision and prevent you doing what is good for you. the politics in Canada are farcical and the politicians are a bunch of clowns. Just have a listen to the live broadcasts of the Parliamentary debates in Canada and you will see what I am saying. It is scandal after scandal. Vote for Obama and make America great and prosperous again All the best.
Reply to this comment
by rbpony5 March 9, 2008 6:54 PM PDT
I don''t buy the argument that voters have been disenfranchised. In fact there has NEVER been an election in which there has been record turnout in every state and every delegate and superdelegate is being fought for. Every state and territory from the largest to the smallest has had EQUAL importance in this election, going the full six months from January to June and probably to the convention in August. I think it is a great thing that the voters in all of the smaller or less populous states have been important and have a vote in deciding this election. We need a President that cares about all of the people in all of the United States, and not one that just cherry picks the one''s that they think they can win in November or that is favorable to their campaign. I am glad that the Obama campaign has challenged the Clinton machine and made this one of the most contested nominations ever. More people have been involved and voted in this campaign than in any other in our history.
Reply to this comment
by elsylee28 March 10, 2008 1:51 PM PDT
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE

%u201CThe Hussein Dynamic%u201D at http://savagepolitics.com.

Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments

About Horserace

Description for Horserace

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented