One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.

Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.

Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?

By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.

Pastor Wright is no Rodney King.

Pastor Wright is no Rodney King.

The first time I experienced Pastor Wright's televised NCAA speech he came off larger than life in an obnoxious caricature of himself. I'm on my third time watching now and I find it very good in many ways. The real irony is Pastor Wright would probably make a better presidential candidate than Barrack Obama, so why would I want Barrack?

The audience reaction to what Pastor Wright was saying was deafening at times, however the audio mix of the speech was slanted to only hear Pastor Wright. This is huge because the audience reaction inadvertently betrayed the Pastor's message at times.

Wright's basic theme was how blacks have been ostracized and judged poorly for being different. Wright brought up several examples of speech and song to make his points that different is not wrong, it is just, different. Wright appeared to mimic John F. Kennedy's and Eisenhower's dialect as an example of how whites have different accents than blacks, but are accepted.

But then the audience made a huge faux pas that few who watched the event on televsion seemed to notice, perhaps because the audience soundtrack was muted. Pastor White brought up examples of music and how Europeans looked down on African music. The problem with Pastor Whites theme was that as he was mimicking white methodologies, his audience was busting a gut, and then some. The audience was listening, laughing, and proving that blacks and whites both behave in nearly identical ways when exposed to those who are different from themselves.

Pastor White also did not take into account that WHITES ALSO MAKE FUN OF OTHER WHITE DIALECTS as well. It may be more accurate to say that whites are an equal opportunity annoyer, but why is it so wrong to say the same thing about blacks?

I guess what I'm asking is, can't we all just annoy the heck out of each other, from time to time, and still get along?

Obama gets a head start in Indiana, I call it another Elitist Move.

Obama gets a head start in Indiana, I call it another Elitist Move.

Barrack Obama was already in Indiana getting a head start over Hillary Clinton in their upcoming Indiana Primary even before the voting had closed in Pennsylvania. Of course Hillary had to stay in Pennsylvania and thank Pennsylvanians for her win, that was the right thing to do. In the past, Hillary has also left a state early if she lost. But there is a difference this time. Barrack spent an obscene amount of money in Pennsylvania and then hinted that they may have caught Hillary in the polls just a day or two before voters went to the polls. How can Barrack Obama declare victory in a state that he lost by 10 points yet not stay around for the finish to thank those who supported him? Just up and leaving the state of Pennsylvania the way that Obama did was not the politically correct thing to do. In my opinion, you don't blanket the state with a huge amount of television commercials and then just disappear the night of the actual vote. It was wrong, it had a twinge of elitism to it.

You don't spend double or triple what your opponent spends and then head out before the votes are tallied while still declaring victory. To make matters worse, Obama lost in Pennsylvania even and then spent more than twice as much time talking on television during his concession speech than Hillary Clinton spent speaking as the winner. Obama seems to double up on everything. Obama spends double the money as compared to Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and loses. Then Barrack Obama spends double the amount of time talking after a primary defeat compared to his victorious opponent. The only change I am seeing in Barrack Obama is one of largess.

To top it off, Obama's speech wasn't even a concession speech. To those who insist that the Clinton side fights dirty, what Obama did was leave the finish line known as Pennsylvania before crossing it, and I consider that to be another act of disrespect and elitism.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Obama supporters on Huffington Post gleefully write that Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton by margins of 4-1 or greater in Pennsylvania. How can a candidate that is running as a Washington outsider outspend a Washington insider by such a wide margin, still lose in several important states, but still be considered the "favorite" to win the democratic nomination?

Why would any true democrat be gleeful at having a nominee with the biggest pockets barely eeke out a lead over another popular candidate who is spending significantly less money? It sounds like forces outside of the mainstream democrat want Barrack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, even if these outside forces have no intention of voting for Barrack this fall.

That would help explain how Barrack Obama can operate a money guzzling Hummer campaign in a hybrid campaign. How can a real democrat find it a good thing that the candidate that guzzles the most money can barely create a tiny lead in the popular vote while losing all of the big states AND a majority of the swing states?

Barrack Obama outspent HIllary Clinton by 4-1 in Ohio, and lost. Apparently Barrack Obama will outspend Hillary Clinton by a margin of 4-1 in Pennsylvania as well. If Hillary Clinton can win the overall popular vote of these two states while Barrack Obama outspends Hillary Clinton by 400%, what type of message is that sending?

Is it reasonable to assume that if Hillary Clinton were outspending Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Hillary would have won both states by 20% or more? Just who is the more popular candidate? I thought "change" meant not buying the popular vote by spending the most money. When Barrack Obama speaks of change, is he actually speaking of the change in your pocket?

My theory is that Barrack Obama's supporters are comprised of 15% of all Republicans (who may or may not vote for him in the fall,) 70% of all independents, and 40% of all democrats. I futher theorize that Hillary Clinton is probably supported by 60% of all democrats, 20% of all independents, and 10% of all republicans (who probably won't vote for her in the fall). Please note that these two sets of numbers do not equal 100% each because each group of voters varies in size, however the democrat numbers do equal 100%, and that is the key.

Hillary Clinton is most likely favored by more real democrats than Barrack Obama is. Shouldn't the candidate that is more popular within their own political party get the nomination?

If more real democrats support Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama as I am theorizing, then there are more democrats who could become demoralized and disenfranchised if their first choice, Hillary Clinton, is defeated by a "crossover hodge podge of support" style of candidate who has had a huge spending advantage, yet still has lost in several key states. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. HIllary Clinton has not outspent Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in any state and then lost.

Which gets me to my final point, Do you want to your vote to be bought by the highest bidder?

Budgetgate-2

Budgetgate-2

Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by less than two percentage points in total votes (when Michigan and Florida are counted the vote totals are almost a tie).

Even the though the popular vote is very close, Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by 7% in total delegates. Yet the media doesn't report this as a delegate distortion, instead they make it seem like it is Hillary that is trying to take advantage of a losing situation and win by getting the super delegate vote.

The caucus states and their delegates were selected using 88% LESS votes per each delegate that was selected as compared to the states that held actual primaries. The Obama camp puffed up their caucus wins in an effort to manipulate the media into getting Hillary to drop out or make it look like Hillary was destroying the democratic party by staying in. The Obama camp has also used the caucus states votes to convince superdelegates that that they have an unquestionable mandate and that the super delegates should fall in line.

Caucus states don't allow voters all day to vote, nor do caucus states allow for voting to be done in the privacy of a voting booth. The media has focused way too much attention trying to prematurely end the democratic voting process and have overemphasized the importance of minimal vote totals in caucus states to try and end a very close race.

Is it possible that the news stations want Hillary to quit because the extended race is causing the news stations to go way over budget covering two different races that were supposed to have already combined into one? Budget Gate, as I call it, may exist, but should we expect the media to turn themselves in?

KCBS in Los Angeles has already announced a payroll cut and a cut in news jobs. Is it possible that the cable news stations and their on air talent and the writers that seem to be hostile towards Hillary want her out and the sooner the better, or perhaps they risk losing some of their own jobs?

What is a Mini Delegate and why this Label is needed.

2008 Election Results

and I have been in a give and take the past week or so. I come up with a hypothesis, their site updates the relevant stats, then I check if my hypothesis is on target. Excellent synergy, thank you!

So far in this years elections ( thru March 26, 2008), the primary states have averaged 11,009 votes for each delegate that has been selected. In the caucus states it only takes 1,304 voters for each delegate that has been selected. Besides the huge reduction in numbers that a caucus state requires to select each delegate, caucuses are very limited as to when one can vote, lack of privacy when voting vote, and inevitably those who are the loudest and most passionate can either manipulate, overpower, or simply scare off others who don't believe in this method of "voting". Entire demographic groups can be alienated or at the very least shunted in a caucus setting.

Since the term Super Delegates has already come into play, I think it is appropriate that the term Mini-Delegate be used in all states that use caucuses to select their delegates. A mini delegate is not a derogatory term, it is an accurate term that puts in focus the fact that 88% LESS voters have been required for each delegate that has been selected.

The significance of the term mini-delegate better helps analyze delegate statistics. The term mini delegate can now have its own header on statistical charts and thereby allow everybody to better understand the true breakdown in how the delegate votes have been selected. This data becomes critical when it comes to evaluating how each presidential candidate is doing.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

If the Delegate Numbers were reversed, Obama would still be Claiming Victory.

Something about Barrack Obama's lead against Hillary Clinton is not adding up. After a bit of research, I think I found the rather weak foundation on which Obama's numbers are based on, and it surprises me that virtually no one other than myself has brought it up.

Based on the amount of electoral college votes that a win in each state brings, Hillary Clinton has 219 Electoral College Votes, Barack Obama has 202. But wait, this isn't counting Florida and Michigan. Some believe Barrack had a marginal chance in Michigan, but nobody thinks Barack would have won Florida.

Add in Florida's Electoral College votes and the numbers read Hillary 246, Barrack 202. Pennsylvania is right around the corner and Hillary is favored there as well. Hillary 267, Barrack 202. How can Hillary Clinton be "on the ropes" when she is dominating in the head to head electoral college vote against Barrack Obama?

I understand that a head to head electoral college competition isn't a perfect system since some of Hillary's wins probably won't happen again against a Republican candidate in the Presidential contest. Nonetheless, a 267 to 202 lead (and Hillary was favored in Michigan as well), is really a big, big difference.

If Barrack had Hillary's position his argument would be he has a huge lead in the electoral college between the two candidates and has also proven he can win in the big states, the decision maker states. Can't you see Barrack Obama using the phrase, "decision maker states", to drive home his point! But somehow, if Hillary makes the same claim, Hillary Clinton would get labeled as Hillary trying to change the voting landscape to give herself an unfair advantage.

That seems like media bias to me.

Among the top ten electoral college states, Hillary Clinton won CA, TX, NY, OH, NJ, and most likely would have won Florida, Michigan and probably will win Pennsylvania. Barrack Obama's two wins in the top ten states would be Illinois, the state he was a senator in and spent a good portion of his life in, and Georgia. That's it!

Barrack Obama wins two of the ten largest electoral college states in the country and he's the democratic favorite? Has there ever been a democratic candidate who only won two of the top ten electoral college states yet was nominated to run for the presidency?

And lets talk about these "Caucuses". I'm sorry, but after listening to the pundits go on and on that the super delegates should not decide the democratic race, what about all of these caucuses in which a very small percentage of the voting population, votes! Barrack Obama has won something like 10 caucuses, Hillary has won 1. I want a candidate who wins in the big states AND who wins when all the voters come out to vote. Caucuses are wonderful for showing the passion of the people who care the most, but at the end of the day, everybodys vote counts equally and caucuses clearly do not reflect the will of all the voters in that state.

Subtract the "caucus states" and add in Florida and Michigan and Barrack Obama has won 17 states, Hillary 15. Factor in that Hillary has those 8 wins in 10 of the largest states and it points to Hillary being well ahead, especially if Hillary wins in Pennsylvania. Hillary has truly been victimized by the "no votes will be counted plan" for the states of Michigan and Florida to such a huge extent yet nobody in the media will come out and just say it. If Michigan and Florida's votes would count, combined with a win in Pennsylvania, it's Hillary by a very wide margin in the electoral college vote and the ten largest states.

That is a news story I have yet to see anywhere.