Amen.

Yes, as a Clinton supporter I am disappointed that her organization failed to see the importance of these small state caucuses and did not have a better strategy for competing in them.  I'm not discounting them at all.  They are costing her the nomination.

That said, Wyoming will be a 7-5 delgate split, so Obama only nets 2 delegates.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  It does not change the story, which is that the nomination is going to the convention and the Superdelegates. Over to them to judge the value of these small red state wins and their implication for the general election.  

Who can best win in November against McCain is the only question at this point.

Caucuses are more expensive for campaigns because of the ground game effort that has to be put forward. This is why they generally favor the status quo candidate because ground games take a lot of effort and the status quo candidate usually is more organized.

This year was different because you had a candidate running who has valuable community organization skills as well as a phenomenal fund raising operation. When you couple his campaign's organizing strategy of "from the ground up" with an efficient fund management operation and put it up against the status quo candidate who has as much funding, but organizes from the top down, you end up with blowouts in caucuses that run counter to common wisdom.

I do not think most Hillary Clinton supporters want to undo what was done. I will say that most people that know anything about politics and democracy do want to see caucuses end. They are not very democratic and they are not truly representative.

Progressive Blue

I too would not ask for a change of rules in the middle of the game.  However, I would like to see the DNC do away with using the results of caucuses.  They disenfranchise voters with transportation issues, those who care for others and those who work irregular shifts and cannot request time off.  

I am deeply concerned that those most effected by federal government decisions (the working poor, the elderly and the disabled) are those least likely or able to participate in caucuses, while the party goes out to aggressively court Republicans for a day and Independents to make decisions for them.  

the entire system seems unique UNdemocratic and not at all in synch with the spirit of what was once the Democratic Party.  

"1)  Wyoming voted today in record numbers in a Demoratic Party caucus"

There are 59,000 registered Democrats in Wyoming. Those "record" numbers equate to about 8,000 voters or 13%. Some primaries are bringing in 60% of registered voters. Nobody in their right mind wants to participate in a caucus. I did in 1988 and vowed to never do it again and I can't begin to tell you how many people have told me the same thing in the last 20 years. There must be millions of people like me.

There are also 136,000 registered Republicans in Wyoming. Democrats are never going to win that state.

How can you be so worried about 8,000 people in Wyoming and totally ignore 1.7 million people in Florida? Sorry, I don't get it.

The problem I have with the whole "we don't like caucuses" from the Clinton campaign is that it's just based on the fact that they are not doing well there.

If they were outperforming in caucuses, then they would be downplaying primaries and talking up the caucuses.

Look, the nominee has always had to go through primaries and caucuses.  It's a reality of American politics.  The complaining is really tedious.

Obama is just moving from contest to contest, giving it his all.  He hasn't been complaining about the formats.  He's been competing, and when he loses, he loses graciously.  (Several times, Hillary has failed/refused to congratulate Obama on his particular win.)