And that she effectively one that election like most us feel she did?

Each site gets a certain number of delegates based on how many people voted at that site 4 years earlier. (So if you have greatly increased attendance this year, tough.) Then that number is allocated among people who get more than 15%. But because some of these sites have very few delegates, the distributions can be very strange. A candidate who got 30% of the vote can end up with the same number of delegates as the one who got 50%. And people who got fewer than 15% get none.

Caucuses have outlived their usefulness. Every state should switch to primaries.

Shows most people wanted him to be president. The popular vote will always matter. And even if we dont respect it, our choices will continue to haunt us.

to stand or sit on a gym floor on a work night -- as opposed to older people in less good health or with less time on their hands.

Caucuses draw a different kind of voter.

But based on your opinions, you should have been outraged that in 2016 all Washington's delegates were chosen based on our caucuses, right? Because almost 4 times as many individual voters participated in our primaries, but none of the delegates were assigned by the primaries at all.

Regardless of the rules or the election. You clearly disagree.

Even though they didnt win by the rules.

Obviously she did not win as she sits in her home in NY?

And should have been declared the winner and would have been right to declare victory, even.

figure you are pulling my leg.

Do a poll. Exactly as is. Lets see.

Caucuses aren't designed to be representative, or to get a significant proportion of the voting population to participate, and there is no such thing as a "popular vote" in a caucus.

No vote that excludes -- by its rules, timing, or other restrictions -- the votes of most of the population can be considered a popular vote.

No vote that excludes disabled or elderly people who can't stand around a gym for hours is a popular vote.
No vote that excludes people who work in the evenings can be a popular vote.
No vote that doesn't allow absentee ballots can be a popular vote.

Discrepancies four years ago in various caucus states resulted in the DNC forcing caucus states to change their rules.

His support was spread around the State, rather than being clumped in College towns. Exactly like the Electoral College. You can complain about it all you want, but you have to work with the system you have, and try to change it later.

and manipulated rigged caucus voting. Sanders is always bitching about a rigged systems. Hypocrite.

...is the team who got more runs, not the team who got more hits, even though hits are the things that lead to runs. e.g. a team with one hit (a home run) can beat a team who had 9 hits (a single in each inning).

Similarly, the winner of a caucus is the candidate who got more delegates. They all knew the rules going in, and could strategize accordingly. Same with Hillary and the electoral college in 2016. She got more hits, but Trump got more runs.

and am SO happy that, this year, we are having a primary for the presidential election. However, I understand that we are having the caucus system for the senate!

Are we trying to one-up Iowa?

The ignorance is obvious and intentional and starts at the top. Sanders repeating the lie that he won doesn't help.

because bernie supporters registered as NPP (No party preference).

They just got their vote by mail ballots and SURPRISE they don't have any presidential candidates on it.

California had 6 of more than 20 political parties qualify to have a presidential primary.
If the voter didn't pick a party, they can't expect California to read their mind.

California sent a postcard to NPP voters before they sent out the ballots saying to update your registration if you don't want to be NPP.

But they are bernie supporters, so conspiracy theory is a better answer then oops I screwed up.

I wouldn’t get caught up over idiosyncrasies of delegate allocation. Especially when there is a 2 delegate difference.

Sanders won in 2016.

Back then, Bernie didn't think it was unfair that the rural precincts mattered more.

It didn't matter much before and it doesn't matter much now. Today, we're talking about New Hampshire, which also doesn't mean much in terms of the delegate count.

Pretty soon, we'll get around to talking about Super Tuesday, which matters a great deal. But, we're not talking about it yet, which is surprising and pretty funny, really. The candidates, too, are ignoring that even, which happens three weeks from tomorrow.

About the only one paying attention to Super Tuesday is Mike Bloomberg, who skipped the first four primaries and has flooded the airwaves with ads during the news hours on all TV networks. While all of the rest of the candidates are spending millions trying to get a few delegates from a few states, Bloomberg is focused on the primaries that send much larger delegations to the convention.

While the rest of the primary field is bickering and throwing shade on each other, Bloomberg is telling the Super Tuesday states what he plans to do, if elected, and going hard after Donald J. Trump.

I ask you, who is the smart candidate right now?