Again, you drop a piece of disinformation and move on.

Historically, caucus results are as much of a determiner of general results as primary results are, which is to say, not at all. The general is completely different type of election. By your criteria, no democratic primary wins count (caucus or primary) since they don't have any bearing on the general election.

In the reality-based world, we look at much more than HUGE wins by HUGE margins in MULTIPLE states. We look at that pesky thing called turnout, which is generally lower in the primary than the general. We notice that in a HUGE handful of red states the democrats had more than twice the turnout as republicans.

In Idaho, well before the republican nomination was decided, Barack had more votes than all the republicans combined. Same in Virginia, though that was a later primary. All those "red" states that went to Barack by HUGE numbers are fully in play for November.

Why? Turnout.

As long as Hillary Clinton is no where near the democratic ticket, most die-hard republicans stay home while the moderates and independents vote for Barack Obama. Add a woman governor to the ticket, just about any woman, or an old white dude with military and/or foreign policy experience, just about any old white dude, and we have a potential for a 50 state victory, something no one has come near to since Reagan in 1984.

Are you here on behalf of the RNC or the DLC?

Idaho, Alaska, Colorado, Washington, Kansas, Hawaii, Minnesota....

Your "..." is North Dakota. That's all. 8 of the 18 were caucuses. Not most.

Determining popular support in those states based on caucus turnout is simply irrational.

Indeed. Then why is the Clinton campaign using caucus votes in their popular vote calculations?

I guess it's all about whatever logic works for you, right?

You are absolutely correct about the results of cacuses not reflecting a candidates level of popularity among the general population. It is much more representative of the candidates leadership skills. It is to bad that Clinton lacks the skill to organize her followers to navigate the rules of a complicated process like signing in at a cacus.

**Caucuses seem so much more REAL as a demonstration of one's commitment. I don't know why they wouldn't count for MORE!

Your point that many of the wins are caucuses is well taken, but a well-run HRC campaign would not have found itself needing statements like that to take the sting out of multiple lopsided defeats inflicted by the better-organized and more intelligently run Obama campaign, which focused on winning delegates (the real currency of the process) and as a bonus, ended up winning the popular vote 'contest' as well as more states than the arrogant HRC entitlement-based strategy could deliver.

If running a campaign is any test, Obama is far more suited to the presidency than HRC is.

Now, may I suggest that you take a break? It sounds on the many threads here like you're beyond desperate in your idolatry of the flawed HRC.

AM, you're so right. MI and FL--yes, yes! We mustn't discount the will of the voters in ANY state. My God! Doesn't everyone understand there would be hell to pay if we did that?

Oh...except we mustn't count caucuses at all. Those disenfranchise people. So we should discount Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, because it would be unfair to Hillary to consider results from states using the inferior, disenfranchising, caucus-style measure of voters' will to determine who actually won the Democratic Party's nomination. It's a shame--there's just no way to measure the popular vote, which is the only legitimatemeasure of voters' will, in those caucus states.

It should be obvious to everyone that the time has come, right in the middle of the 2008 primary contest season, to challenge the terribly unfair, long-established so-called metric (leader in delegates--'pledged' and 'super-') for determining who wins the Democratic Party's nomination.

We can't let Obama get away with stealing this nomination from Hillary by simply getting to the total, 'magic' number of delegates first. It would just be...unfair!

Oh snap!

That was meant for the "Coloured European Observer".