# "Why can't Obama close the deal" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2008, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491 "2008-04-23T02:28:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/81 "2008-04-24T15:51:01Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] Man, I was listening to CNN yesterday and it was maddening… [/QUOTE] Yeah, but they had you watching, didn’t they? That’s what matters. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/82 "2008-04-24T16:03:08Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yeah, but they had you watching, didn’t they? That’s what matters. 😉 [/QUOTE] Well, actually I was just listening on my Sirius (simulcast). Byt point taken. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/83 "2008-04-24T16:30:49Z")
Robert Novak, in today’s Washington Post: > [@](#): > > For the first time, Democratic loyalists not necessarily committed to Clinton are wondering whether the party’s system for picking a nominee is the problem. If caucuses were eliminated and only primaries were used, Obama’s 130-delegate lead would turn into an advantage of 45 delegates for Clinton. The bigger problem is proportional representation, which replaced the kind of winner-take-all system that enabled Republicans to get their nominee on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5… > > . > . > . > > On the other hand, Pennsylvania exit polls project a massive defection by Clinton voters (with 32 percent of them saying they would be “satisfied” only if she is the nominee). Many of these disaffected Democrats surely will be reconciled to Obama. Indeed, McCain privately warns key supporters to be prepared for a massive, if temporary, falloff in the polls once these unhappy Democrats return after Obama is nominated. But not all will return, and that is Pennsylvania’s warning to the Democratic Party. I do think there’s a point to be discussed about primaries vs. caucuses. Personally, I think the caucuses are suspect, if only for the confusing and haphazard way in which many were conducted. But putting that personal view aside, it seems obvious that they’re not equal – so why continue to have a mix of caucuses and primaries? One tool is better than the other – why not decide which one produces more desirable results and use it across the board? ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/84 "2008-04-24T17:04:40Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] Well, actually I was just listening on my Sirius (simulcast). Byt point taken. [/QUOTE] I posted about his yesterday - I suppose the most academic way I can put this, in terms people can truly understand is that CNN really licked their own ass yesterday by spouting that bullshit! I had to listen though to make sure I wasn’t in some sort of disassociative fugue state or something…and ya know what? They really were saying the most idiotic things. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/85 "2008-04-24T17:06:29Z")
I would imagine that the caucus stays around in some states because typically it favors the entrenched politician, the party favorite. It’s just another tool to give the party more control, like delegate apportioning and superdelegates. It was pretty well unexpected by most, as far as I can tell, that the upstart Obama would overtake the caucuses the way that he has. I suspect that Clinton thought, understandably, that the caucus states would reliably roll for her and that’s why she spent relatively little time focusing on them. Obama gamed the system using community organizing tactics and won- thanks in no small part to the fact that he inspires unusual fervor in his supporters, who seem to have time on their hands to caucus until the cows come home. The caucus is certainly not designed to encourage shakeups in the system- now that it is apparent that it can be co-opted, some of these caucuses might begin to disappear. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/86 "2008-04-24T17:07:38Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I do think there’s a point to be discussed about primaries vs. caucuses. Personally, I think the caucuses are suspect, if only for the confusing and haphazard way in which many were conducted. But putting that personal view aside, it seems obvious that they’re not equal – so why continue to have a mix of caucuses and primaries? One tool is better than the other – why not decide which one produces more desirable results and use it across the board? [/QUOTE] For one thing, the party doesn’t decide to hold a primary - the state does (or doesn’t). If I had to choose between primaries in 50 states, and caucuses in 50 states, I’d choose primaries in a heartbeat. For the most part, what you want to learn from the nominating system is, who has the support of the larger number of voters in your party? Primaries tell you that much better than caucuses do. But I’d hate to see caucuses completely squeezed out of the picture, despite the logistical problems in running caucuses in a high-turnout year, in cities especially. IMHO, there’s a place for a part of the nominating system that measures supporters’ passion and enthusiasm, as well as their sheer numbers. For one thing, as long as you need volunteers in the general election to help out with organizing and GOTV, you want a candidate who’s capable of energizing some of those volunteers. And for another, it says something important if a candidate has a lot of support, but nobody’s seriously enthusiastic about him. It means you’ve nominated Mike Dukakis. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/87 "2008-04-24T17:20:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I do think there’s a point to be discussed about primaries vs. caucuses. Personally, I think the caucuses are suspect, if only for the confusing and haphazard way in which many were conducted. But putting that personal view aside, it seems obvious that they’re not equal – so why continue to have a mix of caucuses and primaries? One tool is better than the other – why not decide which one produces more desirable results and use it across the board? [/QUOTE] I thought you were into this whole “states rights” thing? I don’t see why any particular state should be forced to conduct their elections in any way other than what they think works best for their constituents. I also don’t believe that caucuses produce “undesirable” results. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/88 "2008-04-24T17:20:34Z")
[QUOTE=stolichnaya] Man, that Appalachian effect is really distinct, isn’t it. You could predict Kentucky and West Virginia just like a weather forecast. [/quote] Can’t you just? If Clinton can’t get a double-digit win in at least one of those, she should have her politician’s license revoked. 🙂 > [@](#): > > What a fascinating map. It would be cool to see it given some adjustment for population. [They’ve got one](http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=countiescartots6.gif), but I find it hard as hell to read. Looks to me more like a Jackson Pollock than a political map. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/89 "2008-04-24T17:23:03Z")
Another factor in the Obama can’t close the deal is that the right actually would prefer to see Hillary as the Dem candidate. Of course the Clintonistas, such as Clinton Campaign Manager [Terry McAuliffe](http://youtube.com/watch?v=jbJVkIzKq64) are more than happy to play along. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/90 "2008-04-24T17:24:58Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] With some units held constant and others scaled. Anyway, it’s a pretty trivial side issue. [Here’s a color-coded U.S. map showing which candidate won which county, and by what percentage.](http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=countiesqc0.gif) It gives a pretty good idea of who’s strong where. Hillary’s particular areas of strength, geographically, are Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Plus areas with a lot of Hispanics and retirees. Obama does well pretty much everywhere else, although especially so in areas with heavy black populations. Just looking at the map, it seems irrational to expect Obama to ‘close the deal’ in Ohio or Pennsylvania. [/QUOTE] According to HRC, that is map of people who matter and people who don’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/91 "2008-04-24T17:41:01Z")
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus] According to HRC, that is map of people who matter and people who don’t matter. [/QUOTE] I wonder if the people that matter know that? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/92 "2008-04-24T17:45:17Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] I thought you were into this whole “states rights” thing? I don’t see why any particular state should be forced to conduct their elections in any way other than what they think works best for their constituents. I also don’t believe that caucuses produce “undesirable” results. [/QUOTE] As a matter of federalism, I’m into states’ rights. As a matter of how a private political party chooses its nominees, I don’t see any problem with it forcing all states to use a particular method. It has already forced states to use particular dates, and penalized those that have not… hasn’t it? As to the “undesirable” results… ok. It seems to me that given how different primaries and caucuses are, one of them must be producing suboptimal results. Perhaps it’s the primaries that are worse than caucuses? OK, then, trash the primary results. My point being… how can these two widely dissimilar methods produce results of equal weight? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/93 "2008-04-24T18:39:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] [The Democratic Party] has already forced states to use particular dates, and penalized those that have not… hasn’t it? [/quote] Only by a very expansive definition of ‘force’ and ‘penalize.’ A party telling a state, “if you do X, it’ll all be for naught” is hardly coercion or penalizing. > [@](#): > > As to the “undesirable” results… ok. It seems to me that given how different primaries and caucuses are, one of them must be producing suboptimal results. Per my previous response, I’d compare it more with the spices I add to my chili. I use both chili powder and cumin (others too, but I’m simplifying), but the fact that I use some of each doesn’t mean one seasoning or the other is producing suboptimal results; I’m shooting for the ideal balance of the two. > [@](#): > > My point being… how can these two widely dissimilar methods produce results of equal weight? They don’t. There are roughly 3200 pledged delegates, and about 500 of them are chosen by caucuses. (Compare to ~800 unpledged superdelegates.) The 2700 chosen by primaries can determine the nominee by themselves; the 500 chosen by caucuses can’t come anywhere close. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/94 "2008-04-24T19:42:26Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Robert Novak, in today’s Washington Post: I do think there’s a point to be discussed about primaries vs. caucuses. Personally, I think the caucuses are suspect, if only for the confusing and haphazard way in which many were conducted. But putting that personal view aside, it seems obvious that they’re not equal – so why continue to have a mix of caucuses and primaries? One tool is better than the other – why not decide which one produces more desirable results and use it across the board? [/QUOTE] I know why Clinton has embraced this argument (because she lost all but American Samoa), but if you actually look at the states, it is clear that they would have gone the same way in a primary. Clinton hasn’t won a single state in the Mountain West, Midwest, or Northern Plains, and that is where the caucuses are. Utah had a primary and it broke the same way all it’s neighbors with caucuses did. Minnesota had a caucus, but Wisconsin didn’t. Same result. There is no validity to the argument that caucus results don’t reflect the general view of the Democrats in those states. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491/95 "2008-04-24T20:53:30Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Only by a very expansive definition of ‘force’ and ‘penalize.’ A party telling a state, “if you do X, it’ll all be for naught” is hardly coercion or penalizing. [/quote] You know, this is an inauspicious argument to lead off with. The whole point of having a primary is to determine your state’s voice in selecting the Democratic nominee. If a state is not permitted representation, that’s constructive “forcing” and “penalizing.” > [@](#): > > Per my previous response, I’d compare it more with the spices I add to my chili. I use both chili powder and cumin (others too, but I’m simplifying), but the fact that I use some of each doesn’t mean one seasoning or the other is producing suboptimal results; I’m shooting for the ideal balance of the two. Unfortunately for me, this argument was pretty damn insightful. OK, that’s a good analogy and it makes sense. > [@](#): > > They don’t. There are roughly 3200 pledged delegates, and about 500 of them are chosen by caucuses. (Compare to ~800 unpledged superdelegates.) The 2700 chosen by primaries can determine the nominee by themselves; the 500 chosen by caucuses can’t come anywhere close. So does this one. OK, point well taken. (Well, two of your three points were well taken.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-obama-close-the-deal/446491.md?page=4)