Nebraska held their caucus on February 9 with 68 percent for Obama and 32 percent for Clinton. Yet when the people actually voted on May 13, there was only 49 percent for Obama and 47 percent for Clinton. Why the big difference? Do you think caucuses are NOT a true indication of how the people vote or do you think since more information is available on Obama, his electability is in question?
http://www.2008electionprocon.org/primarycaucusres...
Update:I guess I should have mentioned that the delegate count would change. Most likely Obama would lose 4 and Hillary would gain 4. But since Obama won 10 caucuses, how do we know they are accurate. And didn't the Texas vote/caucus point out that caucuses are NOT a true picture? The General Election will be people voting...NO CAUCUSES!!
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
There needs to be reform in the democratic primary election process.
The caucuses are being infiltrated by GOP moles trying to sabotage the election process by campaigning for the weaker democratic candidate.
Nebraska is a deep red state and will never vote for Obama in the general election.
I think some people decided to make the democrat primaries so complicated so the average person doesn't know what is going on. This DEM process is seriously in need of a revamp. They should get rid of the Super Delegates. If there were no Super Delegates no one would stay around hoping to win because of them. No states should be left out because it doesn't make sense when you know you will need them for the General and the citizens shouldn't have to suffer because of their states politics.
Well, in TX, Obama won the caucus, while Hillary *marginally* won the primary. So sure.The same could be said in this situation, right??
Well...in both cases he won soo....I think nothing of it