Friday, March 07, 2008

Primaries Vs. Caucuses

Looking over the electoral map, Obama has built his lead in states that have caucuses. Hillary has a delegate lead if you only look at the states that have primaries. I don't know what it means, I just think it's interesting.

4 comments:

Gringo said...

It basically means that Obama has a more dedicated group of activists than Hillary has. Activists can take over caucuses. I have read some horror stories of that here in Texas. Makes one nostalgic for selectmen and town meetings back in rural New England.

Check out what Ann Althouse has to say.

Anonymous said...

Maybe caucuses leave participants more susceptible to "group think" compared with primaries and their individual private voting. Caucuses should generally favor an attractive candidate with so-called momentum.

akafred

Erin said...

Thanks all! Another interesting "real world" topic for me to bring up as my sophomores talk about the plausibility of Orwell's 1984 next month. It's a great piece to cover during election season.

jackscrow said...

Caucus vs. Popular Vote Results:

There are a lot of lib voters who love to talk a good game when it comes to anti race-bias, but when they get in the booth it's a different matter. I don't think you have to guess at any "Bradley Effect" -- all you have to do is look at the Caucus results in all (not just northern) states vs. the popular vote. If there is data on white caucus votes, I'd bet it backs that up. Of course this doesn't take into account 'pub cross-overs....

On the exit polls, people lie. All the time.

I'll bet the difference in the exit polls and results mirrors the data (if it could be had) of white Dem' caucus voters vs. white Dem' popular vote, only at a slightly smaller ratio.