Exaggerating slightly, but not much. Most caucus turnouts are in the single digits, while the primary turnouts are at least 3 times greater.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2 008_Primaries.htm
and it's Obama's fault that Clinton wrote those states off?
It appears to be that Clinton only campaigns where she's already winning.
She runs that strategy against McCain and we lose.
no, it's not Obama's fault. It's just a stupid setup. Caucuses are dumb. They exclude the majority of the electorate, and they give no indication of how a candidate will fare in the general. It's a stupid way to pick a candidate.
they are certainly better indicators of the will of the electorate than a caucus.
I'll take a look at your diary.
I agree only partially with your claim in the diary. The primary setup is much like the GE setup. If HRC beats BHO in the primary in state X, then she will be more likely to win the state than he when competing against McCain. However, simply because BHO beats HRC in a caucus does not mean he stands a better chance of beating McCain than she in the GE, because the caucus is nothing like the GE, and caucusgoers are not representative.
and no account of the history in the diary?
Bill Clinton's own campaign puts the ridiculous theory to rest that a primary win or loss is more indicative of what will happen in a general election there.
