Are Caucuses Really Why Obama is Winning?
One bit of conventional wisdom in this election (which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have bought into) is that the number of states holding caucuses (a less democratic procedure, for many reasons) have given Obama a real advantage. Today, liberal activist and Obama supporter Glenn Hurowitz and Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini--whose research on the Florida and Michigan primaries we have talked about here before--have come out with a study that suggests just the opposite: Had those states held primaries, Obama would have done even better:
The study also estimates that, in a true popular vote system where all states held primaries, Obama's popular vote lead would have increased from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, because voters in caucus states would have slightly favored Obama based on demographic projections.
Add Your Comment:
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- A Jobs Speech with Elbows
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- That Viral Thing: Facebook's Secret Code
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting













RSS