Hillary: The OTHER Republican Candidate
Here are the raw numbers:
My Dallas County precinct: 2313, gave 311 primary votes to Barack Obama, and 224 to Hillary. That is a split of 58% to 42%.
But.
(And this is a pretty damned big BUT.)
That percentage does not match AT ALL the caucus results. NOT AT ALL.
Let's put it this way: how big of a variation would you expect there to be between primary percentages and caucus percentages? Yes, the people who go to caucus are those who REALLY CARE about their candidate, but shouldn't the percentage split be about the same? Does it make sense that there are more people who REALLY CARE about Obama getting the nomination, but more Hillary supporters who do NOT care? Okay, let's assume that Obama has more "hard" support, more people who are willing to spend the extra time and effort to support him. How much of a difference would you expect? 1%? 3%? 5%? 7% How much higher should I go before it starts to sound absurd? After all, the caucus goers are the same people who voted in the primary earlier in the day, the same mix of race, gender, age, and income.
Or are they?
Folks, the caucus split for my precinct was Obama 75%, Clinton 25%. That is a 17% difference from the primary split. I know because I was there.
Did the demographics shimmer and shift like magic as the clock struck 7 and the polls closed?
No, they sure as hell did not.
There are only 2 explanations:
1)Hillary's core of support is so soft that they just don't care to go that extra mile to win her what amounts too almost a third of the state's delegates to the national convention, in a contest where the difference right now is less than 100 delegates.
2)A large percentage of Hillary's primary vote tally, perhaps as much at 17%, came from somewhere else, from SOMEONE else, a group who could either cast a wasted vote in a Republican primary that was a foregone conclusion, or cast a monkey wrench vote for the opposition candidate they felt was more beatable in the general election.
Which theory makes more sense to you?
17 percent.
I don't know the other caucus results because I wasn't at any other caucus. Maybe my precinct was just a wild statistical anomaly. I can't prove anything. I'm just pointing at what might be smoke. I would like to hear from some other caucus goers to see if they can confirm or contradict my observations.
But think about it. Either Hillary's support is soft, which does not bode well for the general election, or she's being boosted by the Republicans, which does not bode well for the general election.
Hillary's campaign is surging right now, pointing to big state victories in Ohio and Texas. Would a 17% shift toward Obama have changed the results? Oh yeah. Oh hell yeah.
I believe the Democrats are poised to make a huge mistake if they let themselves get caught up in this artificial surge of momentum. I believe that the Clinton campaign is truly as weak as it seemed to be a few weeks ago. And I believe it would be disastrous for Democrats to let the Republicans chose the nominee they prefer to face in November.
My Dallas County precinct: 2313, gave 311 primary votes to Barack Obama, and 224 to Hillary. That is a split of 58% to 42%.
But.
(And this is a pretty damned big BUT.)
That percentage does not match AT ALL the caucus results. NOT AT ALL.
Let's put it this way: how big of a variation would you expect there to be between primary percentages and caucus percentages? Yes, the people who go to caucus are those who REALLY CARE about their candidate, but shouldn't the percentage split be about the same? Does it make sense that there are more people who REALLY CARE about Obama getting the nomination, but more Hillary supporters who do NOT care? Okay, let's assume that Obama has more "hard" support, more people who are willing to spend the extra time and effort to support him. How much of a difference would you expect? 1%? 3%? 5%? 7% How much higher should I go before it starts to sound absurd? After all, the caucus goers are the same people who voted in the primary earlier in the day, the same mix of race, gender, age, and income.
Or are they?
Folks, the caucus split for my precinct was Obama 75%, Clinton 25%. That is a 17% difference from the primary split. I know because I was there.
Did the demographics shimmer and shift like magic as the clock struck 7 and the polls closed?
No, they sure as hell did not.
There are only 2 explanations:
1)Hillary's core of support is so soft that they just don't care to go that extra mile to win her what amounts too almost a third of the state's delegates to the national convention, in a contest where the difference right now is less than 100 delegates.
2)A large percentage of Hillary's primary vote tally, perhaps as much at 17%, came from somewhere else, from SOMEONE else, a group who could either cast a wasted vote in a Republican primary that was a foregone conclusion, or cast a monkey wrench vote for the opposition candidate they felt was more beatable in the general election.
Which theory makes more sense to you?
17 percent.
I don't know the other caucus results because I wasn't at any other caucus. Maybe my precinct was just a wild statistical anomaly. I can't prove anything. I'm just pointing at what might be smoke. I would like to hear from some other caucus goers to see if they can confirm or contradict my observations.
But think about it. Either Hillary's support is soft, which does not bode well for the general election, or she's being boosted by the Republicans, which does not bode well for the general election.
Hillary's campaign is surging right now, pointing to big state victories in Ohio and Texas. Would a 17% shift toward Obama have changed the results? Oh yeah. Oh hell yeah.
I believe the Democrats are poised to make a huge mistake if they let themselves get caught up in this artificial surge of momentum. I believe that the Clinton campaign is truly as weak as it seemed to be a few weeks ago. And I believe it would be disastrous for Democrats to let the Republicans chose the nominee they prefer to face in November.