There have been some excellent arguments on the other blog on this topic (sorry I didn't see it before I started this thread) that demonstrate why the dittohead vote likely didn't play a significant role in HRC's slim TX primary win.
 
But that still doesn't explain the caucus vote for Obama. Yes he has an energized and devoted grassroots organization, but HRC folks seemed just as eager. Do you think her primary vote was higher just because she got that much more name recognition, and her voters were not so much willing to wait in caucus lines as Obama die-hards were? Seems like a pretty big discrepancy in Primary vs. Caucus votes is lining up here.

by Verified1 on 03/07/2008 04:48:51 AM EST

In most cases, participants must declare their support for a candidate in public, but not always. That's the way it has been done, although secret ballots could be the method of choice if decided when the caucus rules are set for each state.

In Texas there's a law that requires employers to allow/encourage their employees to participate in caucuses. The claim that working people couldn't leave work to vote is bogus. Also, the lines at voting precincts are long, so long lines for caucuses is also a bogus excuse.

The main reason Obama did better than Clinton is that his campaign was more organized and enthusiastic with a positive attitude, and he doesn't have to depend on crossover mischief to get votes. His crossover votes are mostly from people who are switching parties for good.

by zenie on 03/07/2008 12:37:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting response, thanks.

by Verified1 on 03/09/2008 01:41:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]