Nebraska Primary vs. Nebraska Caucus

[kennetha]

Nebraska held its "advisory" primary last week.

Obama beat Clinton 49 - 47 w 4% voting for Gavel.

The striking thing is that just as in Washington State, the primary (which awards no delegates) was MUCH closer than (and had a lot more participants than) the Caucus. Obama won the Nebrask Caucuses 67 - 32. About 37, 000 people vote in the Caucuses. About 94,000 voted in the primary.

Which is a more accurate measure of popular support?

[tekisui]

1. Which is more accurate of a well-run organization?

Which actually indicates the winner by delegate count?

[NewHampshireDem]

2. Ahh, so the scrimmage is more important than the real game

Good to know ... :eyes:

[NJSecularist]

3. Obama's delegate margins have been racked up in low-turnout caucuses

Which are not indicative of his support in a state, just how many hardcore followers he has.

[WVRevy]

7. Yeah, those "rules" things are a bitch, ain't they?

What, were Hillary's people surprised that they had to actually compete in caucuses? They both played by the same rules. Hillary lost. Get the hell over it already!

[tekisui]

8. Bullshit. Caucuses are not biased.

Most allow for elderly, disabled, etc, to participate through mail-in votes.

Obama has the better organization, stronger grassroots, and better planning.

Hillary dropped the ball big time on caucuses, and has no one to blame for her big losses there, but herself.

[Czolgosz]

9. I think the caucus process is biased against a name-id queen who expects coronation by ill-informed

voters. The caucus process is driven by Democrats who are informed about the election and informed about the candidates' positions on issues, which is deadly to a candidate whose values are more Lieberman than Democratic.

[mohc]

4. The fact that the primaries were nonbinding

Makes them meaningless for purposes of comparing which is more representative. While I am sure the voters that did go to the primaries in those states voted sincerely, there is no way to account for what is effectively a self selecting sample. Voters that participate in unofficial elections could easily tend to be for one type of candidate, or there could even be a tendency for the supporters of the candidate that lost the caucus to come out to support their candidate in the primary in an attempt to show caucus bias. The only true comparison between caucuses and primaries in this cycle was in Texas where both counted. While there was a swing in support there, it was much less pronounced than it was in WA and NE.

[Czolgosz]

5. The primary gathers more votes from people who show up to vote in a specific race and vote the rest

of the ballot based on name identification. The caucus process captures a more informed vote.

[kennetha]

11. Elitist just like your candidate

[Czolgosz]

12. My candidate dropped out before Super Tuesday, and he wasn't an elitist. What's elitist about being

well informed?

I don't think the process draws elites; it just draws a better informed base. That base includes lots of well-informed activists who only a Hillbot would label an elitist.

[AllentownJake]

6. Just got off the conference call eh?

[DU9598]

10. In which does "Operation Chaos" work best?