Let's repeat this, again. Obama wins caucuses and Southern primaries

Clinton wins primaries.

Why? Because in caucuses people just go and register and vote. No one check for their eligibility to vote, or how often they have voted (students voting in both Iowa and Illinois?) or their addresses.

And if there is a fraud, by the time it is discovered, it is too late.

In primaries voters have to prove who they are and if they are not on the list, they are issued provisional ballots that later have to be verified.

Obama may still be the party nominee, but don't prepare for the coronation, yet.

I liked what Huckabee said yesterday: there are still 27 (by now 21) states. We should have elections, not coronation.

let's not forget that little issue.

please read the OP again, and check your facts.

Didn't you have a very angry post a few weeks ago cutting your support for Obama?

I HAVE LIVED IN THE SOUTH ALL MY LIFE,OBAMA ACTUALLY HAS A CHANCE TO WIN SOME SOUTHERN STATES IN THE GENERAL,HILLARY DOES NOT EXCEPT FOR PERHAPS ARKANSAS,OBAMA HAS THE BIG MO ON HIS SIDE AND WILL WIN THIS THING UNLESS THE CLINTON'S AND THE INSIDERS STEAL IT FROM HIM,AND IF SO THEY HAVE A HUGH PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS IN THE GENERAL,PLEASE BILLARY JUST GO HOME.

2. It's "Huge". Spell-check is your friend.

3. Her name is not "Billary"



Go back to FR buddy.

2. "HUGH" is an in-joke around here since, oh, around 1995, just like "MORAN."

3. "Billary" is indeed kind of insulting, but frankly I think she's taking a lot of playing cards out of Bill's deck (and not the nice ones, either) so I can understand why people use that shorthand.

because nobody likes to be yelled at. It also makes people think you're a freeper because they think the best way to get their point across is to scream louder than everybody else.

2. "Hugh" in a message all in caps is another distinguishing freeperism.

3. Shall I start using nasty words for Obama? Just because other people do it doesn't make it right.

:banghead:

so take it somewhere else

who claim the game is over and Obama won based on this past weekend.

If both had won both caucuses and primaries would not have been a clear conclusion. But they did not and, from my personal experience at a caucus, supported by other caucus goers, this is the conclusion.

you walk in, say your name and maybe address, and they give you the ballot, no other questions asked.

In some caucuses people do not just register and vote.

Msongs

and I have been every single election since I've been in California.

n/t

MSONGS is pretending something that does not exist.
If you don't bring the card they mail you to vote, you are asked to show ID to be checked against the voter registration.
There is no same day voter registration

What people do and say in public and what they do in private are often very different.

gather to vote for delgates. In others you can vote by mail- Maine and WA are two such examples. It's not as simple as you make out.

If there is fraud, by the time it is discovered, it is too late.

That is true in primaries and general elections.

Is there evidence of any organized or widespread plot to defraud Democratic caucuses that I'm not aware of? Or even a single documented instance?

and I don't even know whether anyone checks the all the names of the ones who voted in the caucus.

But the system is open to fraud - perhaps this is too strong a word - for people who do not live in the district, who are just visiting, who are younger than 18 to vote.

not to mention the Southern Primaries you insist don't count. On Tuesday Obama will win VA, MD and D.C.- all primaries. I can guarantee you he'll win my state's primary on March 4; Vermont.

This is getting silly.

The fact is that caucuses in these states benefit Clinton. They are states chock full of white people, and the caucus format ensures that mostly retired voters will attend, because working ones can't. The reason for Obama's wins in these caucuses is that nobody expected the giant flood of college students, who also have free time but normally don't show up.

unsubstantiated vote tampering allegations in the aftermath of New Hampshire. Seriously, though, can this be the last? I don't remember JRE being this petty after Iowa.

But for everyone else, don't be distracted. It's time to look forward and bring it home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4468754

and gets 16,000 at the caucuses there you think he is cheating? In almost every caucus state he has gotten people to come to the rallies in the tens of thousands. Please.

I'm from a fake primary state - NM - it's called a caucus for legal reasons but run like a primary.

Hillary has small lead and vote here is too close to call.

Obama made serious gains (to low 40%) with Latinos - but she has a VERY VERY strong grip on the party
machinery - and is able to really put that to work in a primary.

Obama supporters - DO NOT - get over confident. She has a HUGE advantage in Texas and Ohio where the Machinery is very strong.

I have seen this Machinery work up close - it was locked up VERY early by Bill and friends - long before Obama made this a race - and now these dozens and dozens of local party bosses and leaders -- who actually DO deliver votes on primary day - can't switch to Obama.

Young Latinos who like Obama alot are MOSTLY NOT REGISTERED. They have already missed the deadlines in most cases. In NM it was over a month before the primary - so young Latinos could not register - and Obama was not even on the air till after the registration deadline. Many students and others who really wanted Obama also missed the registration deadline.

She also has HUGE Name Recogntion - and BIG BRAND comfort and loyalty.

If you REALLY support Obama - get on his site and give $$ - or if you speak Spanish like I do - get on his calling program to reach
latino votors.

PLEASE DON'T GET OVER-CONFIDENT - Hillary is still ahead at ground level in Texas and Ohio and probably Pennsylvania too!

VIVA OBAMA - but get to work gente!!!