The Texas Two Step election system for the Democratic Presidential Nomination has provided us with a very interesting experiment, whereby, we can actually compare and contrast results between primaries and caucuses from the same election in a staunchly republican voting state.
I have been puzzled by the dramatic difference between Texas’ primary and caucus results. To this day, I cannot find anbody who has gone on to talk about this dramatic discrepancy in much detail (if you find one let me know). Perhaps since Texas is still counting the caucus results.
The question I have:
Is how is it that Hillary Clinton could win the Texas primary by more than 100,000 votes (winning by 4 points overall) and yet lose in the Texas caucuses by what is currently a 12 point lead)?
After trying to reconcile these differences (and there are a number of explanations which I would encourage feedback on) you are left wondering if caucuses over represent Obama’s strengths.
In my mind this is a legitimate question for two reasons. Firstly, because in the general election we will not be utilizing caucuses and instead we will use a secret ballot system, (where one vote per person decides the election in each state - instead of the diluted caucus system where one vote is supposed to be representative of many people)
Secondly, if it is true that caucuses are not representative of the will of the people (which I suppose it is true) than this also undercuts the argument that whosoever has the higher pledged delegate lead should automatically be supported by the party establishment (i.e. supers). This is especially relevant question considering that Obama has amassed his pledged delegate lead by taking staunchly core republican voting states (WY, ID, NE, KS, ND) via caucuses elections.
So, while his pledged delegate leads may be impressive it’s relative importance is diminished if it turns out that the caucus systems over represent his strength amongst democrats in these conservative states - similar to what happened in Texas.